Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Shoplifting and looting becoming more common


Myles
 Share

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Liquid Gardens said:

The phrase you used was that you cannot 'empirically prove' it.  I disregarded this because no one asked you to 'prove' anything, just support with something.

Po-tay-to, po-tah-to. Surely you knew by the content of that reply that you weren't going to get empirical evidence, which makes your "I wish I knew this earlier" spiel to just ring hollow with empty rhetoric. 

 

1 hour ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Yes, the horror. How can your beliefs and values be 'silenced' when you have provided numerous long posts just on this site containing them?  You are telling your stories hear right now of being 'silenced' on other sites and mentioning the same points that were banned there so your points aren't silenced at all; why do you think you get to make your statements anywhere you want to or it's an attack on free speech?    Explain why you have a right to someone else's stage, microphone or audience.  A lot of people when they refer to 'free speech' are talking about being able to speak freely without being persecuted, mainly by the government.  

Because this site doesn't censor conservatives the way a lot of other groups do! The moderation on this site is excellent, in my opinion. If Twitter/Facebook/etc operated with the same level of moderation as UM, I would not be speaking about censorship the way that I clearly see happen elsewhere! 

 

1 hour ago, Liquid Gardens said:

I have no idea, I wasn't there and the only information I have on it is through the lens of someone who is biased and IMO waaay to into social media.  Besides your stories just seem spun.  Usually sites have some kind of declaration of purpose or rules or what-not, do the left-wing sites specifically say it's an open forum and all commentary is welcome?  Do they say that discussion of conservative viewpoints are welcome?  Would you understand that a facebook group of rock guitar players may ban or moderate someone who wants to talk about jazz guitar, you'd agree that in that scenario that complaints about free speech are ridiculous?  If so, what's the evidence that this same reasoning doesn't apply to you?  I don't agree with the arguments but there may be some point to the idea that certain sites are so large that they should in effect be treated as a public forum, but that obviously doesn't apply to liberal Trekkies and intersectional feminist groups.  It is entirely reasonable for a politically left site to ban conservative commentary and vice versa and no that is not 'silencing' that is content control.  Especially since in absolutely zero way is there any shortage of easy access to plentiful conservative commentary on every topic.

I do get that argument, LG. You're replying to me as if I just jump on left wing sites and begin preaching whatever conservative talking points I want, and b***** what anyone else on the forum wants. That's simply not how it goes. You're also overlooking how it always only goes one direction, never in reverse (ie, your same argument - do the conservative pages I belong to say anything about discussing progressive viewpoints.... and yet I speak about progressive viewpoints, and I never get banned.....)? Oh, and you're also overlooking how those leftists on those pages actively state a desire to institute their level of censorship across the whole internet (and they are backed up by media companies which almost universally lean left and promote the same values). 

Obviously no amount of discussion is going to change views, is there any point in continuing this discussion further? 

Edited by Paranoid Android
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  

2 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

That may be a subjective observation.  Is it possible that your posts and ideas had more affinity for conservative pages?   

It may not be fair to say that.  Texas Republicans kicked out the conservative Log Cabin Republicans, not because they are conservative but because they are gay.  

Yet the conservatives don't ban me for sharing progressive views.... 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

Surely you knew by the content of that reply that you weren't going to get empirical evidence, which makes your "I wish I knew this earlier" spiel to just ring hollow with empty rhetoric. 

Only because I was mistaken that your claims were backed up by anything except hollow and empty rhetoric.  Surely you've been here long enough to see the deceptive switch by woo believers acting like they were asked to 'prove' something?  "I think the evidence shows that ghosts exist" - "What evidence do you have?" - "well I didn't say I could prove it, that's an unreasonable standard".  Happens a lot here, but maybe you have to have a certain level of skepticism or practice in order to be able to spot it.  Your claim was about the real world and there could be empirical evidence for it so it's more reasonable to think that, unlike ghosts and god, there might be something to back up your claim, again thanks for confirming there isn't.  You were also rattling on about 'basic statistics' earlier which implied that you do sometimes at least think you have evidence for your points.

12 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

Because this site doesn't censor conservatives the way a lot of other groups do!

Well then you're obviously not 'silenced', are you?

12 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

The moderation on this site is excellent, in my opinion.

That's not the question of course.  All moderation is anti-free speech yet you don't complain about that happening here, so what is the difference (other than it's not you on the receiving end)?  Aren't people being 'silenced' here too?  Many of them, just like you, don't believe they should have been moderated, some have left this site because of that actually.  Isn't your attitude towards those people the exact attitude I'm assuming towards your tales:  'it's not your site, it's stupid to think you have total free speech here, read the forum rules, etc'?  Why can't people create left or right-wing sites where they only want to discuss those points of view?  You seem to be the one intruding and acting like sites having to do with politics should be free debate forums by default or something, why can't someone have a site where, you know, they restrict it to what the subjects and viewpoints they want to talk about just like here?

12 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

I do get that argument, LG. You're replying to me as if I just jump on left wing sites and begin preaching whatever conservative talking points I want, and b***** what anyone else on the forum wants. That's simply not how it goes.

No, that's not my argument, I'm not saying you are being over-the-top annoying on other sites.  You are making the error of imposing your ideas of what moderation should be on other people's sites, and worst of all acting like you can be an impartial judge about the appropriateness of your own comments on other sites.  A long time ago I stumbled on a feminist site and responded in the debate-ish way and my comment was removed.  I didn't realize it but the site was more of a 'safe space' where women who had been victims of sexual harassment and assault could converse and commiserate, it wasn't for debate.  But I didn't respond to that complaining about censorship and silencing and anti-free speech, since it wasn't. Saru can ban anyone here for any reason he wants or for no reason, maybe he doesn't like someone's username, maybe he doesn't want men commenting here, he owes no one any explanation and does not have to be consistent about it. 

Again that is the issue with a lot of this 'they're anti-free speech' bleating, it is counter to essentially property/ownership and free association rights, which usually conservatives are gung-ho about at least as much as their occasional, very selective concerns about free speech.  You keep relaying these tales like you expect someone to think, 'that is so unfair that you were moderated/banned'; no, it isn't, there isn't anything unfair about it.  Until you can explain why UM gets to have moderating rules which somehow don't count as anti-free speech but other sites that ban you and don't want to hear your conservative views do have free speech implications, I don't think your complaints are reasonable or sensible.  Clubs, groups, and definitely websites that people own get to have whatever rules they want to, every single one of them is probably 'anti-free speech' to the same degree the 'leftist' sites you visit are.

I think it's dumb to complain about moderation on sites as being 'anti-free speech' because you are overlooking the fact that you don't have any free speech rights there, obviously and for good reason.

13 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

Obviously no amount of discussion is going to change views, is there any point in continuing this discussion further? 

I'm not hoping to change any views.  You're the one again who interjected your pet theory that Fox is equal or more biased than CNN here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was watching the local news this morning and there was a story about four vehicles stolen from a car dealership last night.  One of the cars was spotted by police but they had to let them go because we have a terrific new law in Washington that says the police aren't allowed to chase people that drive away when they are trying to pull them over so as not to create a dangerous situation.  Every punk in the state knows about this and speeding away from our neutered police is becoming a big game.  I question the wisdom of our leaders.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

This is only tangentially associated to the topic, but I find it so sad, I thought I'd post it...

New York Post : 'Woke' NYC Starbucks now a haven for junkies, drunks and homeless.
https://nypost.com/2022/08/13/squatters-take-over-noho-starbucks/

Quote

Starbucks recently announced it would shutter 16 profitable stores, two of which are unionized, across Seattle; Los Angeles; Philadelphia; Washington, DC and Portland, Oregon, due to safety concerns, violent crime and rampant drug use in and around the shops.

Starbucks tried to be welcoming to everyone and exemplify diversity tolerance. But, the most progressive, and tolerant, locations are the ones being ruined and forced to close fir employee, and customer, safety.

I think this is a very excellent example of our society. Those who are TOO willing to jump on the Woke train, end up being enablers, and taken advantage of.

Examples seem to hold true that being too tolerant is self destructive.

This holds true of of shoplifters and looters. Tolerance only drives them to continue, or escalate.

Edited by DieChecker
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there any good examples where liberal changes in loosening laws on shoplifting, and such petty crimes,  have REDUCED such petty crime?

AFAIK, such changes have overwhelmingly led to crime increases and shoplifting being normalized.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, OverSword said:

I was watching the local news this morning and there was a story about four vehicles stolen from a car dealership last night.  One of the cars was spotted by police but they had to let them go because we have a terrific new law in Washington that says the police aren't allowed to chase people that drive away when they are trying to pull them over so as not to create a dangerous situation.  Every punk in the state knows about this and speeding away from our neutered police is becoming a big game.  I question the wisdom of our leaders.

What a dumb law 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

What a dumb law 

It came into being after two different chases in 2020 (I think) in which people were killed, one was a cop trying to throw down a spike strip and was hit by another cop.

Edited by OverSword
  • Like 2
  • Sad 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Is there any good examples where liberal changes in loosening laws on shoplifting, and such petty crimes,  have REDUCED such petty crime?

AFAIK, such changes have overwhelmingly led to crime increases and shoplifting being normalized.

I think most of the benefits have been in the area of drug addiction and substance use. The whole war on drugs thing. Harsh penalities don't stop drug use it just increases the incarnation rate. 

Some people took that logic and started applying it to petty crime which I think was a mistake. Like car theft and shoplifting is not an addiction, it dosen't work the same way 

Edited by spartan max2
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

I think most of the benefits have been in the area of drug addiction and substance use. The whole war on drugs thing. Harsh penalities don't stop drug use it just increases the incarnation rate. 

Some people took that logic and started applying it to petty crime which I think was a mistake. Like car theft and shoplifting is not an addiction, it dosen't work the same way 

Maybe, but I witnessed what happens when you stop applying drug laws here.  The social issues caused by drug addiction became visibly amplified and the city much more dangerous.  The higher incarceration rate is more desirable from my perspective.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, OverSword said:

Maybe, but I witnessed what happens when you stop applying drug laws here.  The social issues caused by drug addiction became visibly amplified and the city much more dangerous.  The higher incarceration rate is more desirable from my perspective.

Still lock them up when they commit crimes like theft. Idk how your state does it. But I know in California for example, when they decriminalized drug use they also decriminalized petty crimes. So that stats show am increase in crime, but I personally feel like that is because they can't lock people up for theft anymore so the just repeat it instead of being in prison where they can't repeat it.

 

Idk if your state did the same thing or not 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, OverSword said:

It came into being after two different chases in 2020 (I think) in which people were killed, one was a cop trying to throw down a spike strip and was hit by another cop.

That reminds me of a law that was changed in Oregon a few decades ago because someone let her 6 year old girl try to pump the gas and the girl ended up dousing herself with the gasoline because the pump was too strong for her.   Luckily there was an offduty fireman at the next pump and he got the gas shut off.    So until recenly, no one could pump their own gas, had to have a trained employee at the gas station or quickie mart do it.   There were other laws similar that we had to program for (law suits against the assessors office that changed rules about the assessing of property by lakes etc.)   I always thought Oregon was the most democratic state in the union based on how quickly they would bring a vote and how many people would vote on things.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, spartan max2 said:

Still lock them up when they commit crimes like theft. Idk how your state does it. But I know in California for example, when they decriminalized drug use they also decriminalized petty crimes. So that stats show am increase in crime, but I personally feel like that is because they can't lock people up for theft anymore so the just repeat it instead of being in prison where they can't repeat it.

 

Idk if your state did the same thing or not 

Not quite as stupid as CA but close.  In the city dumber than the state though.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Only because I was mistaken that your claims were backed up by anything except hollow and empty rhetoric.  Surely you've been here long enough to see the deceptive switch by woo believers acting like they were asked to 'prove' something?  "I think the evidence shows that ghosts exist" - "What evidence do you have?" - "well I didn't say I could prove it, that's an unreasonable standard".  Happens a lot here, but maybe you have to have a certain level of skepticism or practice in order to be able to spot it.  Your claim was about the real world and there could be empirical evidence for it so it's more reasonable to think that, unlike ghosts and god, there might be something to back up your claim, again thanks for confirming there isn't.  You were also rattling on about 'basic statistics' earlier which implied that you do sometimes at least think you have evidence for your points.

My only suggestion is that you read CNN more critically than you apparently are. 

 

6 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Well then you're obviously not 'silenced', are you?

That makes zero sense. Because one website has good moderation, therefore as a whole conservative views are not being silenced????? :blink: 

 

6 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

That's not the question of course.  All moderation is anti-free speech yet you don't complain about that happening here, so what is the difference (other than it's not you on the receiving end)?  Aren't people being 'silenced' here too?  Many of them, just like you, don't believe they should have been moderated, some have left this site because of that actually.  Isn't your attitude towards those people the exact attitude I'm assuming towards your tales:  'it's not your site, it's stupid to think you have total free speech here, read the forum rules, etc'?  Why can't people create left or right-wing sites where they only want to discuss those points of view?  You seem to be the one intruding and acting like sites having to do with politics should be free debate forums by default or something, why can't someone have a site where, you know, they restrict it to what the subjects and viewpoints they want to talk about just like here?

20 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

I do get that argument, LG. You're replying to me as if I just jump on left wing sites and begin preaching whatever conservative talking points I want, and b***** what anyone else on the forum wants. That's simply not how it goes. You're also overlooking how it always only goes one direction, never in reverse (ie, your same argument - do the conservative pages I belong to say anything about discussing progressive viewpoints.... and yet I speak about progressive viewpoints, and I never get banned.....)? Oh, and you're also overlooking how those leftists on those pages actively state a desire to institute their level of censorship across the whole internet (and they are backed up by media companies which almost universally lean left and promote the same values). 

Obviously no amount of discussion is going to change views, is there any point in continuing this discussion further? 

I've included my original comment here for comparison, because you have just demonstrated that you are in fact treating my comments like I'm just going on to progressive sites and arguing for the sake of it. You couch it in terms like "I'm not saying you are being over-the-top annoying".... which is just your way of saying "you aren't being VERY annoying, but you are being A LITTLE annoying". So it's exactly what I said - you are responding to me like I'm just going on to these websites and preaching whatever I want. 

 

6 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

No, that's not my argument, I'm not saying you are being over-the-top annoying on other sites.  You are making the error of imposing your ideas of what moderation should be on other people's sites, and worst of all acting like you can be an impartial judge about the appropriateness of your own comments on other sites.  A long time ago I stumbled on a feminist site and responded in the debate-ish way and my comment was removed.  I didn't realize it but the site was more of a 'safe space' where women who had been victims of sexual harassment and assault could converse and commiserate, it wasn't for debate.  But I didn't respond to that complaining about censorship and silencing and anti-free speech, since it wasn't. Saru can ban anyone here for any reason he wants or for no reason, maybe he doesn't like someone's username, maybe he doesn't want men commenting here, he owes no one any explanation and does not have to be consistent about it. 

To the part in bold, your previous paragraph demonstrates that is EXACTLY your argument! 

To demonstrate my meaning - I was on a page belonging to a group of feminists. I'm sharing this story simply to point out that I'm not going out of my way to argue and fight with people on these boards and yet I still get removed. They were a very left wing group so I made a decision not to fight or argue with anyone. I just lurked, it was a way that I was able to keep tabs on what stories people on the left were finding interesting, which are very different to the stories I get bombarded with on conservative sites. It provides different perspectives and views and I find a broader understanding of people when I see what stories they are interested in. 

I never posted on that board. I did make one non-political comment once about school teaching but other than that I just lurked. Someone shared an article about Lia Thomas and another female member wrote something along the lines of "I support trans women in life, but in sport I believe that trans women have a competitive advantage over biological women". I clicked "like" on that post, and kept reading. A few posts later, an admin had announced "person x has been banned from our forum for hate speech" (yes, literally hate speech). I then clicked the back button to read the rest of the page and a notification came up saying I no longer had permission to view the board. They literally banned me for liking a post. No matter how you slice it, liking a post is NOT and NEVER WILL BE "being over-the-top on other sites".

As noted, I'm not sharing this to demonstrate how silly the moderation is, you've already made it clear that you don't care about the individual situations. I'm sharing this story solely to counter your assertion that I am intruding on these people's spaces and forcing them to discuss topics that they don't want to talk about or are not interested in talking about or what have you.  

And like I mentioned in my previous post, during my time on this (and other) pages one thought was very prevalent - wouldn't it be awesome if they were able to institute their brand of censorship across the entirety of the internet. And that is the part that I find scary, because the left wing media is already helping them on their way (once again, it's worth mentioning things like covid originating in a Wuhan lab and the left wing media literally banning people from their platforms who promoted this in 2020, but in 2021 when the democrats talked about it it was suddenly ok again - but because it's social medial, they are allowed to create their own rules, even if that means "fortifying the election" against the conservatives).

And it still remains (and a fact you have chosen to ignore so far) that I have shared progressive views on conservative pages if the situation required it, and I have never been banned from these pages. Certainly not for liking a progressive's posts (and sometimes a progressive does join to comment or discuss liberal issues, if it's a progressive issue I agree with I've clicked "Like" on the posts before).  

 

6 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Again that is the issue with a lot of this 'they're anti-free speech' bleating, it is counter to essentially property/ownership and free association rights, which usually conservatives are gung-ho about at least as much as their occasional, very selective concerns about free speech.  You keep relaying these tales like you expect someone to think, 'that is so unfair that you were moderated/banned'; no, it isn't, there isn't anything unfair about it.  Until you can explain why UM gets to have moderating rules which somehow don't count as anti-free speech but other sites that ban you and don't want to hear your conservative views do have free speech implications, I don't think your complaints are reasonable or sensible.  Clubs, groups, and definitely websites that people own get to have whatever rules they want to, every single one of them is probably 'anti-free speech' to the same degree the 'leftist' sites you visit are.

I think it's dumb to complain about moderation on sites as being 'anti-free speech' because you are overlooking the fact that you don't have any free speech rights there, obviously and for good reason.

I'm not hoping to change any views.  You're the one again who interjected your pet theory that Fox is equal or more biased than CNN here.

If UM was unfair in its moderation I wouldn't be here. UM is a good website with good moderation, if the rest of the internet was as open and welcoming to multiple viewpoints as UM was, I literally wouldn't be having this conversation with you today. But I am having this conversation with you because the rest of the internet is NOT like this, and conservatives are being silenced from these spaces at alarming rates, with large numbers of people who actually share the view that tougher moderation is better (as in, as tough or tougher than being able to ban a person for liking a post). 

That's a scary combination, it may not affect your speech today, but you know how the old Niemoller phrase goes - first they came for the socialists, but I did not speak up because I was not a socialist...... then they came for me and there was no one left to speak for me. I skipped a few lines but I'm sure you know the reference

Edited by Paranoid Android
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

That makes zero sense. Because one website has good moderation, therefore as a whole conservative views are not being silenced????

I have cyber-heard you load and clear, including the points you said were banned on other sites, so if I can hear you how are you 'silenced'?  Not providing you the megaphone you want to use that does not belong to you is not 'silencing'.  No one is obligated to give you their own pen and paper for you to document your thoughts.  For some sites there is an owner of it, who is paying for it, and thus you have no right or expectation to anything concerning it.  'Society' or the 'government' can potentially silence people in our countries, not individual web sites and groups.

53 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

I've included my original comment here for comparison, because you have just demonstrated that you are in fact treating my comments like I'm just going on to progressive sites and arguing for the sake of it. You couch it in terms like "I'm not saying you are being over-the-top annoying".... which is just your way of saying "you aren't being VERY annoying, but you are being A LITTLE annoying". So it's exactly what I said - you are responding to me like I'm just going on to these websites and preaching whatever I want. 

Stop.  First of all if you recall, the last conversation with you about your Fox-CNN theory involved you flat-out lying about what my argument was and what I think, so you should know better than to say 'this is just my way of saying', you should know by now that you are terrible at guessing what I think.  You have multiple stories in play, banned for liking a post and for posting about Rittenhouse which can be seen as a right wing belief you are preaching by the site owner no matter if you view it as and it actually is a sober analysis of applicable law.  And I did say 'You seem'; I'm working with what I've got concerning something where I was not there. 

What I said was you are going onto these sites with some kind of idea in your head as to what they're moderation policy should be.  If you need it spelled out, which apparently you do since your guessing of what I'm saying is always biased to the worst, I don't think you were being 'very annoying' in the sense that any general person would think you were annoying; I don't think you were a troll or taunting people or engaging in any kind of behavior that would get you banned here, you're wrong but usually polite. ;)  You could though be 'a little annoying' to the people who are on the site merely because of your presence, or your screen name, or what posts you 'liked', but not 'a little annoying' in any general sense or that would be considered annoying at all here.  Like I mentioned earlier, a totally polite person posting about jazz guitar on a rock guitar site may annoy that site's users.

Let's say someone creates a brand new site and pays a hosting company for it and has a comment section.  Exactly what obligation do you think the owner of this site has to commenters?  My answer is absolutely zero.  If you get banned for a stated or for no stated reason it is not anti-free speech, again you have no free speech rights there.  Just like if someone comes to your house and says a bunch of stuff you find offensive and you kick them out, that's not 'silencing'.

1 hour ago, Paranoid Android said:

And it still remains (and a fact you have chosen to ignore so far) that I have shared progressive views on conservative pages if the situation required it, and I have never been banned from these pages. Certainly not for liking a progressive's posts (and sometimes a progressive does join to comment or discuss liberal issues, if it's a progressive issue I agree with I've clicked "Like" on the posts before).  

That's because it's a meaningless statistic as delivered by an admittedly biased person.  It's not that 'I don't care about individual cases', it's that, objectively, statistically, you can't determine things about large groups without a sufficient sample size and somehow controlling for bias.  I don't know what sites you were on, what your posting history was on them, what the purpose of those sites were, etc, I don't know how well your tale matches reality than I do people's ghost sightings here.  Maybe you weren't banned for progressive views on a conservative site because you had previously posted conservative views on other topics.  There is this whole 'owning the libs' game/psychosis for some on the right that doesn't have any direct parallel on the left that I'm aware of, maybe conservatives want to fight with libs more than the other way because of this.  You would not understand I don't think but I would fully support any site especially a non-conservative one banning anyone who mentions Trump and that's not silencing either, that's not wanting to host idiocy (from their view, the only one that matters in this situation).

1 hour ago, Paranoid Android said:

If UM was unfair in its moderation I wouldn't be here. UM is a good website with good moderation, if the rest of the internet was as open and welcoming to multiple viewpoints as UM was, I literally wouldn't be having this conversation with you today. But I am having this conversation with you because the rest of the internet is NOT like this, and conservatives are being silenced from these spaces at alarming rates, with large numbers of people who actually share the view that tougher moderation is better (as in, as tough or tougher than being able to ban a person for liking a post). 

That is not the point, the point is why is banning you for your behavior 'silencing' and UM banning people for their behavior not?  You're right, the rest of the internet is not like UM, but you have absolutely zero grounds for expecting any other site or group to be like UM, none. It doesn't matter if you think it's ridiculous that a like was interpreted as 'hate speech', the owner of the site gets to determine what constitutes that to them, not you  who have made zero effort or investment towards the existence of the site.  

(to be clear, UM is very reasonable overall and generous in giving people additional chances and in no way excessively bans people; if anything I've wondered in a few cases why it took so long)

1 hour ago, Paranoid Android said:

That's a scary combination, it may not affect your speech today, but you know how the old Niemoller phrase goes - first they came for the socialists, but I did not speak up because I was not a socialist...... then they came for me and there was no one left to speak for me. 

'First they banned people in internet comment sections for liking posts' just doesn't quite have the same gravity...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
43 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

'First they banned people in internet comment sections for liking posts' just doesn't quite have the same gravity...

Nevertheless, you must still respect and reasonably acknowledge the attrocities PA has suffered "have been so calculated, so malignant, and so devastating, that civilization cannot tolerate their being ignored, because it cannot survive their being repeated."

:rolleyes:

 

Edited by Golden Duck
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

@Liquid Gardens, @Golden Duck - I'm sure you'd be more worried if it were your beliefs being silenced.  When they come for you,  if I'm still around I'll speak up for you. I just hope it's not too late by that stage. 

Other than that,  this discussion is going nowhere,  and as is not topical  I'll leave it be. 

Edited by Paranoid Android
  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

I'm sure you'd be more worried if it were your beliefs being silenced.

No I wouldn't, because what you are describing is not silencing. But yes, it does appear that people do want to talk about the topic still and I'd just be repeating unanswered questions at this point.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A cemetery just outside the city of Philadelphia revealed that 90 percent of new burials are victims of the city’s burgeoning violent gun crime.

Fox 29, a local news station, reported that “grave diggers at Friends Southwestern Burial Ground in Upper Darby can barely keep up with demand.” Fox 29 also noted that cemetery officials said they are “literally running out of room for burial plots.”
 

https://www.breitbart.com/crime/2022/08/19/suburban-philadelphia-cemetery-90-percent-new-burials-victims-violent-gun-crime/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, el midgetron said:

A cemetery just outside the city of Philadelphia revealed that 90 percent of new burials are victims of the city’s burgeoning violent gun crime.

Fox 29, a local news station, reported that “grave diggers at Friends Southwestern Burial Ground in Upper Darby can barely keep up with demand.” Fox 29 also noted that cemetery officials said they are “literally running out of room for burial plots.”
 

https://www.breitbart.com/crime/2022/08/19/suburban-philadelphia-cemetery-90-percent-new-burials-victims-violent-gun-crime/

I don't understand why more people don't get cremated.  

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, el midgetron said:

A cemetery just outside the city of Philadelphia revealed that 90 percent of new burials are victims of the city’s burgeoning violent gun crime.

Fox 29, a local news station, reported that “grave diggers at Friends Southwestern Burial Ground in Upper Darby can barely keep up with demand.” Fox 29 also noted that cemetery officials said they are “literally running out of room for burial plots.”
 

https://www.breitbart.com/crime/2022/08/19/suburban-philadelphia-cemetery-90-percent-new-burials-victims-violent-gun-crime/

Cremation...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, OverSword said:

Maybe, but I witnessed what happens when you stop applying drug laws here.  The social issues caused by drug addiction became visibly amplified and the city much more dangerous.  The higher incarceration rate is more desirable from my perspective.

In Oregon they decriminalized small amounts, and paraphernalia. So, what we got now is stoned homeless everywhere, poop and urine everywhere, and needles nearly everywhere.

Mayor Wheeler, who two years ago was throwing rocks at the Federal Courthouse with Antifa, is now ordering the homeless removed from like 90% of public spaces. The latest is removing homeless, their camps, and their stuff, from anywhere near a school, OR, any walking paths leading to schools.

He's practically becoming a Republican. LOL. :w00t:

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A woman detained in Grady County, Oklahoma, slipped out of her handcuffs in the back of a patrol car, grabbed the officer’s AR-15, and opened fire, striking a bystander with bullet fragments….

…Thirty-six-year-old Clay surrendered after a three hour standoff. Police 1 notes that she “tested positive for meth and faces charges of shooting with the intent to kill.”

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2022/08/20/watch-woman-slips-out-handcuffs-grabs-officers-ar-15-opens-fire/

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, el midgetron said:

A woman detained in Grady County, Oklahoma, slipped out of her handcuffs in the back of a patrol car, grabbed the officer’s AR-15, and opened fire, striking a bystander with bullet fragments….

…Thirty-six-year-old Clay surrendered after a three hour standoff. Police 1 notes that she “tested positive for meth and faces charges of shooting with the intent to kill.”

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2022/08/20/watch-woman-slips-out-handcuffs-grabs-officers-ar-15-opens-fire/

And she’s still alive. 
Must be a good thing she didn’t resist arrest or struggle. 

  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.