Two National Guardsmen shot in DC altercation
-
@Mik said in Two National Guardsmen shot in DC altercation:
Given your track record, you can't even say that with a straight face.
People will believe their own BS. Those who are most invested in their own BS, will also be most invested in propagating their BS to everybody who will listen. Say, how's the wallpaper on TNCR over the past year? Got a faint sniff of "jon infecting the world with his BS".
-
@Mik said in Two National Guardsmen shot in DC altercation:
Given your track record, you can't even say that with a straight face.
This smells of TDSDS. Show me where I pinned this on Trump. Highlight the line.
-
@Mik said in Two National Guardsmen shot in DC altercation:
Given your track record, you can't even say that with a straight face.
This smells of TDSDS. Show me where I pinned this on Trump. Highlight the line.
@jon-nyc said in Two National Guardsmen shot in DC altercation:
@Mik said in Two National Guardsmen shot in DC altercation:
Given your track record, you can't even say that with a straight face.
This smells of TDSDS. Show me where I pinned this on Trump. Highlight the line.
Nobody cares as much about the potential literal readings of your words as you do. As I've explained previously, you're happy to imply broadly, and then retreat to literal when you get pushback in your unpreferred direction. If anybody read your post as a blaming of Trump, you would get an endorphin rush. if anybody pushes back against a blaming of Trump, you get literal. This is known as motte and bailey, but you already know that fallacy. Not that it prevents you from employing it whenever it makes opportunistic rhetorical sense to do so.
-
@jon-nyc said in Two National Guardsmen shot in DC altercation:
Thatâs nonsensical.
In your head I'm sure it is. meanwhile, nobody else lives in your head. Only you. Despite your best attempts at wallpapering TNCR with your head. To the detriment of the whole dynamic.
-
I would say that this - https://nodebb.the-new-coffee-room.club/post/352511 broadly paints it as a logical result of the stationing of National Guard in DC, and kinda implies that sending 500 more troops actually worsens the situationâŚ
But itâs easy to read things into written words that arenât meant by the poster.
The Brad
-
I would say that this - https://nodebb.the-new-coffee-room.club/post/352511 broadly paints it as a logical result of the stationing of National Guard in DC, and kinda implies that sending 500 more troops actually worsens the situationâŚ
But itâs easy to read things into written words that arenât meant by the poster.
@LuFins-Dad said in Two National Guardsmen shot in DC altercation:
I would say that this - https://nodebb.the-new-coffee-room.club/post/352511 broadly paints it as a logical result of the stationing of National Guard in DC, and kinda implies that sending 500 more troops actually worsens the situationâŚ
But itâs easy to read things into written words that arenât meant by the poster.
It does worsen the situation. Just like adding troops for no reason resulted in this unnecessary risk. Same with the ICE raids on civilians and illegal immigrants without any local crimes.
Of course we can never prove a hypothetical but would those guardsmen be alive and without injury had they not been brought to DC for a marketing stunt?
-
@LuFins-Dad said in Two National Guardsmen shot in DC altercation:
I would say that this - https://nodebb.the-new-coffee-room.club/post/352511 broadly paints it as a logical result of the stationing of National Guard in DC, and kinda implies that sending 500 more troops actually worsens the situationâŚ
But itâs easy to read things into written words that arenât meant by the poster.
It does worsen the situation. Just like adding troops for no reason resulted in this unnecessary risk. Same with the ICE raids on civilians and illegal immigrants without any local crimes.
Of course we can never prove a hypothetical but would those guardsmen be alive and without injury had they not been brought to DC for a marketing stunt?
@89th said in Two National Guardsmen shot in DC altercation:
@LuFins-Dad said in Two National Guardsmen shot in DC altercation:
I would say that this - https://nodebb.the-new-coffee-room.club/post/352511 broadly paints it as a logical result of the stationing of National Guard in DC, and kinda implies that sending 500 more troops actually worsens the situationâŚ
But itâs easy to read things into written words that arenât meant by the poster.
It does worsen the situation. Just like adding troops for no reason resulted in this unnecessary risk. Same with the ICE raids on civilians and illegal immigrants without any local crimes.
Of course we can never prove a hypothetical but would those guardsmen be alive and without injury had they not been brought to DC for a marketing stunt?
One can make the reasonable case for that. And that case is fine. But to imply the case, and then be too lazy or cowardly to personally back the case up, is where it gets gross.
Education is extremely important.
-
Listen, despite all evidence to the contrary, Iâm not an idiot. I can just tell you my reaction to this was âyeah, they shouldnât have been there in the first place for a marketing stuntâ. Eventually the same thing will happen with the shameful ICE raids I bet.
-
I thought it already had been done with the "shameful ice raids", except the crazy anti-American person in that case, accidentally killed a couple of detainees rather than ICE agents. The anecdotes are actually piling up for crazy anti-America violence. they don't get a lot of play here, because jon's counterpart does not exist here to remind the world of every single anecdote that crosses their Twitter feed, which satisfies their biases.
-
@89th said in Two National Guardsmen shot in DC altercation:
@LuFins-Dad said in Two National Guardsmen shot in DC altercation:
I would say that this - https://nodebb.the-new-coffee-room.club/post/352511 broadly paints it as a logical result of the stationing of National Guard in DC, and kinda implies that sending 500 more troops actually worsens the situationâŚ
But itâs easy to read things into written words that arenât meant by the poster.
It does worsen the situation. Just like adding troops for no reason resulted in this unnecessary risk. Same with the ICE raids on civilians and illegal immigrants without any local crimes.
Of course we can never prove a hypothetical but would those guardsmen be alive and without injury had they not been brought to DC for a marketing stunt?
One can make the reasonable case for that. And that case is fine. But to imply the case, and then be too lazy or cowardly to personally back the case up, is where it gets gross.
@Horace said in Two National Guardsmen shot in DC altercation:
@89th said in Two National Guardsmen shot in DC altercation:
@LuFins-Dad said in Two National Guardsmen shot in DC altercation:
I would say that this - https://nodebb.the-new-coffee-room.club/post/352511 broadly paints it as a logical result of the stationing of National Guard in DC, and kinda implies that sending 500 more troops actually worsens the situationâŚ
But itâs easy to read things into written words that arenât meant by the poster.
It does worsen the situation. Just like adding troops for no reason resulted in this unnecessary risk. Same with the ICE raids on civilians and illegal immigrants without any local crimes.
Of course we can never prove a hypothetical but would those guardsmen be alive and without injury had they not been brought to DC for a marketing stunt?
One can make the reasonable case for that. And that case is fine. But to imply the case, and then be too lazy or cowardly to personally back the case up, is where it gets gross.
I donât find that case one that can be reasonably made at all. Let me make this counter: A federal push to restore safety and prevent violent crime in the federal city was successful, and even acknowledged as such by the mayor. Despite all of the screaming opposition, there were no rights trampled, and no disruption to the running of the city. Now, in the middle of the drawdown of NG troops, an Afghani from Washington travels all the way to DC to attack NG troops? I would argue forcefully that the cause was not the 2500 troops that were pretty innocuous, but were instead people like @89th arguing online that this was a travesty and an infringement on the freedom of Americans, unrivaled since forever and this was worse than Hitler! Kristalnacht is next!
So some dude from a country where armed insurrection and murder is the political coin, naturally responds to the instigation of 89th saying âShe shouldnât have worn the red lipstick, then this wouldnât have happened!â
I think thatâs a far more more reasonable argument, but still wrong, since the blame lies solely on the guy that pulled the trigger.
The Brad
-
@Horace said in Two National Guardsmen shot in DC altercation:
@89th said in Two National Guardsmen shot in DC altercation:
@LuFins-Dad said in Two National Guardsmen shot in DC altercation:
I would say that this - https://nodebb.the-new-coffee-room.club/post/352511 broadly paints it as a logical result of the stationing of National Guard in DC, and kinda implies that sending 500 more troops actually worsens the situationâŚ
But itâs easy to read things into written words that arenât meant by the poster.
It does worsen the situation. Just like adding troops for no reason resulted in this unnecessary risk. Same with the ICE raids on civilians and illegal immigrants without any local crimes.
Of course we can never prove a hypothetical but would those guardsmen be alive and without injury had they not been brought to DC for a marketing stunt?
One can make the reasonable case for that. And that case is fine. But to imply the case, and then be too lazy or cowardly to personally back the case up, is where it gets gross.
I donât find that case one that can be reasonably made at all. Let me make this counter: A federal push to restore safety and prevent violent crime in the federal city was successful, and even acknowledged as such by the mayor. Despite all of the screaming opposition, there were no rights trampled, and no disruption to the running of the city. Now, in the middle of the drawdown of NG troops, an Afghani from Washington travels all the way to DC to attack NG troops? I would argue forcefully that the cause was not the 2500 troops that were pretty innocuous, but were instead people like @89th arguing online that this was a travesty and an infringement on the freedom of Americans, unrivaled since forever and this was worse than Hitler! Kristalnacht is next!
So some dude from a country where armed insurrection and murder is the political coin, naturally responds to the instigation of 89th saying âShe shouldnât have worn the red lipstick, then this wouldnât have happened!â
I think thatâs a far more more reasonable argument, but still wrong, since the blame lies solely on the guy that pulled the trigger.
@LuFins-Dad said in Two National Guardsmen shot in DC altercation:
@Horace said in Two National Guardsmen shot in DC altercation:
@89th said in Two National Guardsmen shot in DC altercation:
@LuFins-Dad said in Two National Guardsmen shot in DC altercation:
I would say that this - https://nodebb.the-new-coffee-room.club/post/352511 broadly paints it as a logical result of the stationing of National Guard in DC, and kinda implies that sending 500 more troops actually worsens the situationâŚ
But itâs easy to read things into written words that arenât meant by the poster.
It does worsen the situation. Just like adding troops for no reason resulted in this unnecessary risk. Same with the ICE raids on civilians and illegal immigrants without any local crimes.
Of course we can never prove a hypothetical but would those guardsmen be alive and without injury had they not been brought to DC for a marketing stunt?
One can make the reasonable case for that. And that case is fine. But to imply the case, and then be too lazy or cowardly to personally back the case up, is where it gets gross.
I donât find that case one that can be reasonably made at all. Let me make this counter: A federal push to restore safety and prevent violent crime in the federal city was successful, and even acknowledged as such by the mayor. Despite all of the screaming opposition, there were no rights trampled, and no disruption to the running of the city. Now, in the middle of the drawdown of NG troops, an Afghani from Washington travels all the way to DC to attack NG troops? I would argue forcefully that the cause was not the 2500 troops that were pretty innocuous, but were instead people like @89th arguing online that this was a travesty and an infringement on the freedom of Americans, unrivaled since forever and this was worse than Hitler! Kristalnacht is next!
So some dude from a country where armed insurrection and murder is the political coin, naturally responds to the instigation of 89th saying âShe shouldnât have worn the red lipstick, then this wouldnât have happened!â
I think thatâs a far more more reasonable argument, but still wrong, since the blame lies solely on the guy that pulled the trigger.
That seems reasonable as well.
-
@Horace said in Two National Guardsmen shot in DC altercation:
@89th said in Two National Guardsmen shot in DC altercation:
@LuFins-Dad said in Two National Guardsmen shot in DC altercation:
I would say that this - https://nodebb.the-new-coffee-room.club/post/352511 broadly paints it as a logical result of the stationing of National Guard in DC, and kinda implies that sending 500 more troops actually worsens the situationâŚ
But itâs easy to read things into written words that arenât meant by the poster.
It does worsen the situation. Just like adding troops for no reason resulted in this unnecessary risk. Same with the ICE raids on civilians and illegal immigrants without any local crimes.
Of course we can never prove a hypothetical but would those guardsmen be alive and without injury had they not been brought to DC for a marketing stunt?
One can make the reasonable case for that. And that case is fine. But to imply the case, and then be too lazy or cowardly to personally back the case up, is where it gets gross.
I donât find that case one that can be reasonably made at all. Let me make this counter: A federal push to restore safety and prevent violent crime in the federal city was successful, and even acknowledged as such by the mayor. Despite all of the screaming opposition, there were no rights trampled, and no disruption to the running of the city. Now, in the middle of the drawdown of NG troops, an Afghani from Washington travels all the way to DC to attack NG troops? I would argue forcefully that the cause was not the 2500 troops that were pretty innocuous, but were instead people like @89th arguing online that this was a travesty and an infringement on the freedom of Americans, unrivaled since forever and this was worse than Hitler! Kristalnacht is next!
So some dude from a country where armed insurrection and murder is the political coin, naturally responds to the instigation of 89th saying âShe shouldnât have worn the red lipstick, then this wouldnât have happened!â
I think thatâs a far more more reasonable argument, but still wrong, since the blame lies solely on the guy that pulled the trigger.
@LuFins-Dad said in Two National Guardsmen shot in DC altercation:
@Horace said in Two National Guardsmen shot in DC altercation:
@89th said in Two National Guardsmen shot in DC altercation:
@LuFins-Dad said in Two National Guardsmen shot in DC altercation:
I would say that this - https://nodebb.the-new-coffee-room.club/post/352511 broadly paints it as a logical result of the stationing of National Guard in DC, and kinda implies that sending 500 more troops actually worsens the situationâŚ
But itâs easy to read things into written words that arenât meant by the poster.
It does worsen the situation. Just like adding troops for no reason resulted in this unnecessary risk. Same with the ICE raids on civilians and illegal immigrants without any local crimes.
Of course we can never prove a hypothetical but would those guardsmen be alive and without injury had they not been brought to DC for a marketing stunt?
One can make the reasonable case for that. And that case is fine. But to imply the case, and then be too lazy or cowardly to personally back the case up, is where it gets gross.
I donât find that case one that can be reasonably made at all. Let me make this counter: A federal push to restore safety and prevent violent crime in the federal city was successful, and even acknowledged as such by the mayor. Despite all of the screaming opposition, there were no rights trampled, and no disruption to the running of the city. Now, in the middle of the drawdown of NG troops, an Afghani from Washington travels all the way to DC to attack NG troops? I would argue forcefully that the cause was not the 2500 troops that were pretty innocuous, but were instead people like @89th arguing online that this was a travesty and an infringement on the freedom of Americans, unrivaled since forever and this was worse than Hitler! Kristalnacht is next!
So some dude from a country where armed insurrection and murder is the political coin, naturally responds to the instigation of 89th saying âShe shouldnât have worn the red lipstick, then this wouldnât have happened!â
I think thatâs a far more more reasonable argument, but still wrong, since the blame lies solely on the guy that pulled the trigger.
If the troops were there for a legit purpose, it wouldnât be a problem, but it was a marketing stunt. Itâs the same as if Trump said letâs see if we can fit 100,000 troops into a stadium, and as part of the stunt, a light falls and crushes two of them, that is why this is an unnecessary tragedy.
