Suspect behind threats to Jewish sites arrested

[Angry Floof]

I don't believe anyone need reminding anyone that some police actually commit crimes and some men actually rape. If you guys would, at least once in a while, exercise a little skepticism in the face of reports that someone in power is being held accountable.

You're right, people don't need those reminders, like you said. What they need are the reminders I wrote... and I agree that HEALTHY skepticism must exist on both sides (the "women never lie about rape" side and the "..", wait, what is the other side? who is saying men never rape, again? oh yea.. exactly no one.

I'll do the humane thing and err on the side of the powerless.

As long as you can admit you are erring.

No one errs by holding the powerful accountable. Bootlickers are not skeptics. Sucking up to power doesn't protect the powerless, yet right wing authoritarian followers strut around like pigeons as if doing exactly that is some kind of virtue.

Challenge that shit some time and I'll believe you have honesty and principles behind your words. Meanwhile, you and your ilk on this board are not looking any better than Grandpa Simpson ordering up footage of protesters being beaten as his end-of-life comfort. Justice is mere lip service for bootlickers.

 

[Malintent]

You're right, people don't need those reminders, like you said. What they need are the reminders I wrote... and I agree that HEALTHY skepticism must exist on both sides (the "women never lie about rape" side and the "..", wait, what is the other side? who is saying men never rape, again? oh yea.. exactly no one.

I'll do the humane thing and err on the side of the powerless.

As long as you can admit you are erring.

No one errs by holding the powerful accountable. Bootlickers are not skeptics. Sucking up to power doesn't protect the powerless, yet right wing authoritarian followers strut around like pigeons as if doing exactly that is some kind of virtue.

Challenge that shit some time and I'll believe you have honesty and principles behind your words. Meanwhile, you and your ilk on this board are not looking any better than Grandpa Simpson ordering up footage of protesters being beaten as his end-of-life comfort. Justice is mere lip service for bootlickers.

It is this attitude of one-side-against-another that is tribalist and unproductive. this attitude is the problem... your "team" isn't right even when they are wrong... ethics and government aren't competitive sports. each instance of an event deserves its own evaluation.

You come off sounding like the people that don't know the difference between the Affordable Healthcare Act and "Obamacare", and oppose it because of the name "the other team" have given it.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Thinking the underdog is always right is one of the greatest errors of the liberals.

I always thought the liberal side was thinking that the underdog deserves an equal chance to explain his side, and unless strong protections are in place, probably didn't/won't get it.
SO he's not always right, but very likely railroaded, that's the liberal side.

And then it doesn't really matter if he's right or wrong, he's been trampled upon.

 

[Angry Floof]

You're right, people don't need those reminders, like you said. What they need are the reminders I wrote... and I agree that HEALTHY skepticism must exist on both sides (the "women never lie about rape" side and the "..", wait, what is the other side? who is saying men never rape, again? oh yea.. exactly no one.

I'll do the humane thing and err on the side of the powerless.

As long as you can admit you are erring.

No one errs by holding the powerful accountable. Bootlickers are not skeptics. Sucking up to power doesn't protect the powerless, yet right wing authoritarian followers strut around like pigeons as if doing exactly that is some kind of virtue.

Challenge that shit some time and I'll believe you have honesty and principles behind your words. Meanwhile, you and your ilk on this board are not looking any better than Grandpa Simpson ordering up footage of protesters being beaten as his end-of-life comfort. Justice is mere lip service for bootlickers.

It is this attitude of one-side-against-another that is tribalist and unproductive. this attitude is the problem... your "team" isn't right even when they are wrong... ethics and government aren't competitive sports. each instance of an event deserves its own evaluation.

You come off sounding like the people that don't know the difference between the Affordable Healthcare Act and "Obamacare", and oppose it because of the name "the other team" have given it.

I don't care what I come off "sounding like" to you. Boot lickers all sound like opportunist mongrels waiting to munch on whatever prey the authoritarian predator brought down. That's what you and your ilk come off sounding like.

And do you also think it's useful to equate a liberal questioning authority and right wingers demonizing the powerless? Really? If we're going to err equally, are you saying it's better to err on the side of justifying the acts of the powerful than to err on the side of keeping human rights and civil liberties at the forefront of your investigation at least? These are equally bad approaches?

 

[Angry Floof]

Thinking the underdog is always right is one of the greatest errors of the liberals.

I always thought the liberal side was thinking that the underdog deserves an equal chance to explain his side, and unless strong protections are in place, probably didn't/won't get it.

Right.

SO he's not always right, but very likely railroaded, that's the liberal side.

Pretty much. Note that the liberal view of rights also includes Republicans and other boot lickers when they're sick or lose all their money or get arrested or any of the things that right wingers think won't happen to them until it does.

And then it doesn't really matter if he's right or wrong, he's been trampled upon.

If someone's rights are trampled, then the details of the trampling are all that is relevant.

His previous record of petty crimes or even of serious crimes doesn't mean "easy target for predatory cops." It doesn't mean "cops get to choose the sentencing up to and including death." It doesn't mean "those with the magic badges have the sacred duty of ensuring that all people with criminal records receive continued punishment throughout their lives. It's what Jesus would do."

Right wing ideology attracts fear, closed thinking, punishment mentality, and also reinforces fear, closed thinking, and punishment mentality toward out groups.

We are perfectly capable of adapting to a tribe of seven billion, and we better fucking get on that because no one can stop the spread of humans and technology that puts us all in each other's faces. We better be able to adapt, but it doesn't look promising given how riddled the world is with ignorant, religious identities that seek social domination at all costs. We know what right wingers are willing to do to their fellow human beings if they don't fit whatever pathetic cartoon has been instilled in the right wing authoritarian follower's head.

It's openness, curiosity, empathy, education, and willingness to question that creates a "liberal mind." It takes a lot of fear and social influence to make someone with these innate tendencies into a right wing authoritarian follower. Abuse is often an effective method as well.

Meanwhile, right wing authoritarian follower mentality has run amok to the point of it launching itself into the most powerful office in our land. You gotta respect that deep animal fear reflex underlying all the individual choices, attitudes, beliefs, and perceptions of right wing America. That's a long jump from the dark, sweaty underbelly of our country.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Thinking the underdog is always right is one of the greatest errors of the liberals.

I always thought the liberal side was thinking that the underdog deserves an equal chance to explain his side, and unless strong protections are in place, probably didn't/won't get it.
SO he's not always right, but very likely railroaded, that's the liberal side.

And then it doesn't really matter if he's right or wrong, he's been trampled upon.

No--they somehow see them as being in the right because they stood up to power, never mind who was in the right. Every scumbag who spins a good story gets their support.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If someone's rights are trampled, then the details of the trampling are all that is relevant.

The problem is that usually that "trampling" is a perfectly reasonable application of government power to stop wrongdoing.

His previous record of petty crimes or even of serious crimes doesn't mean "easy target for predatory cops." It doesn't mean "cops get to choose the sentencing up to and including death." It doesn't mean "those with the magic badges have the sacred duty of ensuring that all people with criminal records receive continued punishment throughout their lives. It's what Jesus would do."

And nobody is saying it does. A prior criminal record does indicate something of how people are likely to behave, though. Ever notice how it's almost always guys with long rap sheets that fight back against the cops?

 

[Angry Floof]

I always thought the liberal side was thinking that the underdog deserves an equal chance to explain his side, and unless strong protections are in place, probably didn't/won't get it.
SO he's not always right, but very likely railroaded, that's the liberal side.

And then it doesn't really matter if he's right or wrong, he's been trampled upon.

No--they somehow see them as being in the right because they stood up to power, never mind who was in the right. Every scumbag who spins a good story gets their support.

That's simply not true. But if you can't see past black and white yourself, then you wouldn't recognize if anyone else does. And you're still clueless about power and why the powerless, no matter how distasteful the out-group identity is to you, must be protected. If you don't know that then I hope your privilege continues to protect you from being that guy with his arms up who gets shot by cops this week.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No--they somehow see them as being in the right because they stood up to power, never mind who was in the right. Every scumbag who spins a good story gets their support.

That's simply not true. But if you can't see past black and white yourself, then you wouldn't recognize if anyone else does. And you're still clueless about power and why the powerless, no matter how distasteful the out-group identity is to you, must be protected. If you don't know that then I hope your privilege continues to protect you from being that guy with his arms up who gets shot by cops this week.

Advancing on a gun is a threat, period. Arms up doesn't change that. You're doing exactly what I'm pointing out--assuming the underdog is in the right regardless of evidence.

 

[Angry Floof]

That's simply not true. But if you can't see past black and white yourself, then you wouldn't recognize if anyone else does. And you're still clueless about power and why the powerless, no matter how distasteful the out-group identity is to you, must be protected. If you don't know that then I hope your privilege continues to protect you from being that guy with his arms up who gets shot by cops this week.

Advancing on a gun is a threat, period. Arms up doesn't change that. You're doing exactly what I'm pointing out--assuming the underdog is in the right regardless of evidence.

Nope. I'm assuming, correctly, that you refuse to acknowledge the power imbalance that almost ensures the powerless will go through unnecessary hell, even if they ultimately get justice, at the hands of entitled goons who have less of a clue than you do about how they themselves operate. You can't acknowledge how that power imbalance plus centuries of bigotry affects our society and culture and how that cannot be separated from incidents of law enforcement thinking they are also prosecutor, judge, and jury, and so far, all this is socially acceptable to white boot lickers.

I would like to add, though, that I do hope the whining from the powerful about how the powerless are picking on them continues for a long time. That just means the pressure's on. I'm happy that poor, pitiful, set upon right wingers are feeling that and maybe having a cuddle-cry with their gun collections over it.

 

[Malintent]

You're right, people don't need those reminders, like you said. What they need are the reminders I wrote... and I agree that HEALTHY skepticism must exist on both sides (the "women never lie about rape" side and the "..", wait, what is the other side? who is saying men never rape, again? oh yea.. exactly no one.

I'll do the humane thing and err on the side of the powerless.

As long as you can admit you are erring.

No one errs by holding the powerful accountable. Bootlickers are not skeptics. Sucking up to power doesn't protect the powerless, yet right wing authoritarian followers strut around like pigeons as if doing exactly that is some kind of virtue.

Challenge that shit some time and I'll believe you have honesty and principles behind your words. Meanwhile, you and your ilk on this board are not looking any better than Grandpa Simpson ordering up footage of protesters being beaten as his end-of-life comfort. Justice is mere lip service for bootlickers.

It is this attitude of one-side-against-another that is tribalist and unproductive. this attitude is the problem... your "team" isn't right even when they are wrong... ethics and government aren't competitive sports. each instance of an event deserves its own evaluation.

You come off sounding like the people that don't know the difference between the Affordable Healthcare Act and "Obamacare", and oppose it because of the name "the other team" have given it.

I don't care what I come off "sounding like" to you. Boot lickers all sound like opportunist mongrels waiting to munch on whatever prey the authoritarian predator brought down. That's what you and your ilk come off sounding like.

And do you also think it's useful to equate a liberal questioning authority and right wingers demonizing the powerless? Really? If we're going to err equally, are you saying it's better to err on the side of justifying the acts of the powerful than to err on the side of keeping human rights and civil liberties at the forefront of your investigation at least? These are equally bad approaches?

there you go with that "you and your ilk" nonsense again. You don't know shit. I guess you are not interested in discussion as much as chearing for your team (religion, politics, football.. all the same to "you and your ilk").

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Advancing on a gun is a threat, period. Arms up doesn't change that. You're doing exactly what I'm pointing out--assuming the underdog is in the right regardless of evidence.

Nope. I'm assuming, correctly, that you refuse to acknowledge the power imbalance that almost ensures the powerless will go through unnecessary hell, even if they ultimately get justice, at the hands of entitled goons who have less of a clue than you do about how they themselves operate. You can't acknowledge how that power imbalance plus centuries of bigotry affects our society and culture and how that cannot be separated from incidents of law enforcement thinking they are also prosecutor, judge, and jury, and so far, all this is socially acceptable to white boot lickers.

I would like to add, though, that I do hope the whining from the powerful about how the powerless are picking on them continues for a long time. That just means the pressure's on. I'm happy that poor, pitiful, set upon right wingers are feeling that and maybe having a cuddle-cry with their gun collections over it.

Your reasons are based in the past. What you seem to be after is revenge.

And you didn't even address the point that Brown wasn't surrendering.

 

[J842P]

You're right, people don't need those reminders, like you said. What they need are the reminders I wrote... and I agree that HEALTHY skepticism must exist on both sides (the "women never lie about rape" side and the "..", wait, what is the other side? who is saying men never rape, again? oh yea.. exactly no one.

I'll do the humane thing and err on the side of the powerless.

As long as you can admit you are erring.

No one errs by holding the powerful accountable. Bootlickers are not skeptics. Sucking up to power doesn't protect the powerless, yet right wing authoritarian followers strut around like pigeons as if doing exactly that is some kind of virtue.

Challenge that shit some time and I'll believe you have honesty and principles behind your words. Meanwhile, you and your ilk on this board are not looking any better than Grandpa Simpson ordering up footage of protesters being beaten as his end-of-life comfort. Justice is mere lip service for bootlickers.

It is this attitude of one-side-against-another that is tribalist and unproductive. this attitude is the problem... your "team" isn't right even when they are wrong... ethics and government aren't competitive sports. each instance of an event deserves its own evaluation.

You come off sounding like the people that don't know the difference between the Affordable Healthcare Act and "Obamacare", and oppose it because of the name "the other team" have given it.

I don't care what I come off "sounding like" to you. Boot lickers all sound like opportunist mongrels waiting to munch on whatever prey the authoritarian predator brought down. That's what you and your ilk come off sounding like.

And do you also think it's useful to equate a liberal questioning authority and right wingers demonizing the powerless? Really? If we're going to err equally, are you saying it's better to err on the side of justifying the acts of the powerful than to err on the side of keeping human rights and civil liberties at the forefront of your investigation at least? These are equally bad approaches?

Do you apply these same standards when people defend the US intelligence community on here? Because I don't recall you ever doing that. Of course, I'm pretty sure you had a different name before you were Angry Floof, so I cannot quite place who you used to be.

 

[Angry Floof]

Do you apply these same standards when people defend the US intelligence community on here? Because I don't recall you ever doing that. Of course, I'm pretty sure you had a different name before you were Angry Floof, so I cannot quite place who you used to be.

I don't understand your point. What are people saying about the intelligence community, and why am I responsible for whatever that is?

 

[J842P]

Do you apply these same standards when people defend the US intelligence community on here? Because I don't recall you ever doing that. Of course, I'm pretty sure you had a different name before you were Angry Floof, so I cannot quite place who you used to be.

I don't understand your point. What are people saying about the intelligence community, and why am I responsible for whatever that is?

People here seem to be very willing to believe the intelligence community regarding the Trump-Russia connection. Indeed, anyone that is skeptical is immediately dismissed as "working for Uncle Vlad" -- a classic, right-wing American tactic, I might add. And yet, I haven't seen you calling out people as "boot lickers" for erring on the side of the intelligence community. Of course, it isn't the fairest comparison. It's pitting one flavor or right-wing authoritarianism vs Trumps more demagogic populism, which is deeply rooted in right-wing authoritarian thinking.

 

[Angry Floof]

I don't understand your point. What are people saying about the intelligence community, and why am I responsible for whatever that is?

People here seem to be very willing to believe the intelligence community regarding the Trump-Russia connection. Indeed, anyone that is skeptical is immediately dismissed as "working for Uncle Vlad" -- a classic, right-wing American tactic, I might add. And yet, I haven't seen you calling out people as "boot lickers" for erring on the side of the intelligence community. Of course, it isn't the fairest comparison. It's pitting one flavor or right-wing authoritarianism vs Trumps more demagogic populism, which is deeply rooted in right-wing authoritarian thinking.

I'm not involved in that conversation. Right wing authoritarianism isn't a term for "whoever seems to be the most adamant or aggressive about their belief." There are very specific traits associated with the term. Those traits are: emphasis on comformity, obedience to an authority, fear of others, willingness to punish or eradicate out-groups, diminished empathy, and unwillingness to help those labeled an out group by the authority.

It doesn't mean "unreasonable asshole," although that also applies. You just don't see it in the literature.

Again, I haven't joined that conversation and it's not likely I will, but what you're describing is not right wing authoritarianism.

 

[J842P]

People here seem to be very willing to believe the intelligence community regarding the Trump-Russia connection. Indeed, anyone that is skeptical is immediately dismissed as "working for Uncle Vlad" -- a classic, right-wing American tactic, I might add. And yet, I haven't seen you calling out people as "boot lickers" for erring on the side of the intelligence community. Of course, it isn't the fairest comparison. It's pitting one flavor or right-wing authoritarianism vs Trumps more demagogic populism, which is deeply rooted in right-wing authoritarian thinking.

I'm not involved in that conversation. Right wing authoritarianism isn't a term for "whoever seems to be the most adamant or aggressive about their belief." There are very specific traits associated with the term. Those traits are: emphasis on comformity, obedience to an authority, fear of others, willingness to punish or eradicate out-groups, diminished empathy, and unwillingness to help those labeled an out group by the authority.

It doesn't mean "unreasonable asshole," although that also applies. You just don't see it in the literature.

Again, I haven't joined that conversation and it's not likely I will, but what you're describing is not right wing authoritarianism.

Wait, so you *don't think* that the CIA has these qualities: emphasis on comformity, obedience to an authority, fear of others, willingness to punish or eradicate out-groups, diminished empathy, and unwillingness to help those labeled an out group by the authority?

 

[Angry Floof]

I'm not involved in that conversation. Right wing authoritarianism isn't a term for "whoever seems to be the most adamant or aggressive about their belief." There are very specific traits associated with the term. Those traits are: emphasis on comformity, obedience to an authority, fear of others, willingness to punish or eradicate out-groups, diminished empathy, and unwillingness to help those labeled an out group by the authority.

It doesn't mean "unreasonable asshole," although that also applies. You just don't see it in the literature.

Again, I haven't joined that conversation and it's not likely I will, but what you're describing is not right wing authoritarianism.

Wait, so you *don't think* that the CIA has these qualities: emphasis on comformity, obedience to an authority, fear of others, willingness to punish or eradicate out-groups, diminished empathy, and unwillingness to help those labeled an out group by the authority?

They may be an authority, but I've never heard of any liberal who considered the CIA to be their own ideological authority. Have you? I grew up learning that cops, teachers, firemen, soldiers, bosses, and dads were authority figures. That's American culture, neutral in the heads of sane people but all those authorities except for teachers, in the heads of right wing authoritarian followers, becomes a nasty Bible beating, flag-waving, faggot killing bundle of patriotism that can't be questioned.

Right wing authoritarianism is a right wing problem, hence the name. No one is exempt from these human fallibilities, but the left does not share those traits to any significant degree or the attraction to authority in place of one's own conscience. Whatever their reasons for siding with the CIA, and however wrong you think those reasons, it's not likely due to automatic bias for an authority figure.

Personally I don't give a shit how wrong they are, or whether you understand right wing mentality for the dangerous force it is without jumping first to that tired lie that "the left is just as bad." I'm just happy to have yet another opportunity to talk about right wing authoritarian follower mentality. It needs to be a kitchen table topic, but with facts, not "Oh look, another general term for people we don't like. Let's apply it to those dirty liberals!"

 

[J842P]

Wait, so you *don't think* that the CIA has these qualities: emphasis on comformity, obedience to an authority, fear of others, willingness to punish or eradicate out-groups, diminished empathy, and unwillingness to help those labeled an out group by the authority?

They may be an authority, but I've never heard of any liberal who considered the CIA to be their own ideological authority. Have you?

Right wing authoritarianism is a right wing problem, hence the name. No one is exempt from these human fallibilities, but the left does not share those traits or the attraction to authority in place of one's own conscience. Whatever their reasons for siding with the CIA, and however wrong you think those reasons, it's not likely due to automatic bias for an authority figure.

Personally I don't give a shit how wrong they are, or whether you understand right wing mentality for the dangerous force it is without jumping first to that tired lie that "the left is just as bad." I'm just happy to have yet another opportunity to talk about right wing authoritarian follower mentality. It needs to be a kitchen table topic, but with facts, not "Oh look, another general term for people we don't like. Let's apply it to those dirty liberals!"

Oh for fuck's sake. I'm saying the CIA is the epitome of right-wing authoritarianism. And despite that, many on the left now are licking their boots. And you are right, it's not because of right-wing authoritarianism, it's because of partisanship. The same sort of partisanship which doesn't let you have a discussion without resulting painting the other person as either a member of your outgroup or not.

 

[Angry Floof]

They may be an authority, but I've never heard of any liberal who considered the CIA to be their own ideological authority. Have you?

Right wing authoritarianism is a right wing problem, hence the name. No one is exempt from these human fallibilities, but the left does not share those traits or the attraction to authority in place of one's own conscience. Whatever their reasons for siding with the CIA, and however wrong you think those reasons, it's not likely due to automatic bias for an authority figure.

Personally I don't give a shit how wrong they are, or whether you understand right wing mentality for the dangerous force it is without jumping first to that tired lie that "the left is just as bad." I'm just happy to have yet another opportunity to talk about right wing authoritarian follower mentality. It needs to be a kitchen table topic, but with facts, not "Oh look, another general term for people we don't like. Let's apply it to those dirty liberals!"

Oh for fuck's sake. I'm saying the CIA is the epitome of right-wing authoritarianism. And despite that, many on the left now are licking their boots. And you are right, it's not because of right-wing authoritarianism, it's because of partisanship. The same sort of partisanship which doesn't let you have a discussion without resulting painting the other person as either a member of your outgroup or not.

You haven't shown anyone licking boots. You said some liberals are believing the CIA over a fascist administration. I don't know the details, but this doesn't exactly surprise me, and it's not because the CIA has ever stood in liberal minds or ideology as any kind of authority.