Complaint Thread

[Bold-Arrow]

I am yet to see any rational person with some kind of a road map to how to move forward and bring people together. 

For the majority here that doesnt know, I  was born and raised in a civil war torn country that is still divided to this day with no light at the end of the tunnel.  I moved to the USA about 20 years ago because of what this country stood and still stands for , and hopefully someone smarter than me can fix this . I've seen firsthand what hatred and violence does, at the end of the day there are no winners other than warlords and politicans . 

[Darth_Raichu]

8 minutes ago, Phil B said:

Freedom of speech should not be confused with condoning the spread of hatred, racism, bigotry or inciting violence.

There is a big difference between being allowed to say that the US needs less taxation and Federal oversight or stating your belief that God creates the earth 3000 years ago (neither of these are my opinion but I am totally fine with people saying this as part of their Freedom of Speech) and making derogatory comments towards entire groups of people, or calling people to arms to enact "justice" outside of the established judicial system.

Curious, what is your take on BLM protesters who yelled profanity and spewed hatred against a group of people (ie. the police) for the better part of last summer?  By the above definition, should BLM be allowed to express their freedom of speech?

 

[NIevo]

27 minutes ago, redghostx said:

Everyone and each company is biased; Some more explicitly than others. It is still possible to have a polite, respectful discourse, and a fair exchange of ideas without censorship. Intelligent people have the ability to parse through this and reach a more or less informed decision. This site is generally proof of that.

The problem is that some democrats and some Republicans, in particular POTUS are incapable of this (or choose not to) and that is where the problems start. I personally object to the extreme left and right wing views, but I still respect that those people are entitled to their opinion and to share them with like minded people. I take issue when speeches get cancelled because one side (usually the left) vehemently objects. Generally, censorship is not good for society and neither is marginalizing these views and IMO, this has greatly led to many of the escalating conflicts. There are exceptions to this of course and some views are so despicable that they should never be allowed to be raised or promoted.

I appreciated how generally polite today's discussion has been, but perhaps it is time to move on and complain about Lego, deaths, bad music, hotcakes, makeup sales, etc.


Now, a complaint:
The US needs a federal election system, instead of a 50 state system. Yeah, it probably won't happen in my lifetime because I think it needs a constitutional amendment and states/parties lose power, but here's hoping.

 

I can agree with most of that.  As for POTUS, I'm not a fan of how he speaks a lot of times as I know it puts off a lot of people regardless of what his actual message is.  His policies and direction for this country is what got him elected and what most of his followers love, not the person he is.

US will never have a federal system, it would destroy what this country is which is a Republic, not a Democracy.  We have to have a balance between 90% of the country that is more conservative and the other 10% that is the huge liberal cities who control a large portion of a few states.  Thats why you are constantly seeing area's trying to secede is people are tired of one city controlling a whole state, look at WA or VA.

What we need is a nationalized voter ID.  How we have to have an ID to drive, fly, buy a gun etc. but don't have to have one to vote on who we want to lead the most powerful nation in the world is beyond me.

14 minutes ago, Phil B said:

Freedom of speech should not be confused with condoning the spread of hatred, racism, bigotry or inciting violence.

There is a big difference between being allowed to say that the US needs less taxation and Federal oversight or stating your belief that God created the earth 3000 years ago (neither of these are my opinion but I am totally fine with people saying this as part of their Freedom of Speech) and making derogatory comments towards entire groups of people, or calling people to arms to enact "justice" outside of the established judicial system.

So are you for or against BLM and Antifa?  Honest question.

[spener90]

7 minutes ago, Bold-Arrow said:

I am yet to see any rational person with some kind of a road map to how to move forward and bring people together. 

For the majority here that doesnt know, I  was born and raised in a civil war torn country that is still divided to this day with no light at the end of the tunnel.  I moved to the USA about 20 years ago because of what this country stood and still stands for , and hopefully someone smarter than me can fix this . I've seen firsthand what hatred and violence does, at the end of the day there are no winners other than warlords and politicans . 

I would kind of like to see Jocko Willink. But I realize that is a pipe dream.

[NIevo]

8 minutes ago, Darth_Raichu said:

Curious, what is your take on BLM protesters who yelled profanity and spewed hatred against a group of people (ie. the police) for the better part of last summer?  By the above definition, should BLM be allowed to express their freedom of speech?

 

 

Lol...beat me to it.  Both those groups are worse then anything the right has shown.

[chinothegeeko]

Curious, what is your take on BLM protesters who yelled profanity and spewed hatred against a group of people (ie. the police) for the better part of last summer?  By the above definition, should BLM be allowed to express their freedom of speech?
 

Exactly. Burned cities and looted. Nonstop violence. Peaceful protests though. What a joke. Probably didn’t see any of it though thanks to cnn,nbc. We are more divided than ever as a country now more than ever.

[Phil B]

Curious, what is your take on BLM protesters who yelled profanity and spewed hatred against a group of people (ie. the police) for the better part of last summer?  By the above definition, should BLM be allowed to express their freedom of speech?
 

I took part in BLM protests. I did not protest against the police, I protested to give voice to the fact that Black Lives are treated differently than White Lives. Our BLM protests in our quiet part of the midwest US were non-violent, and the police participated (as in, they helped direct traffic, escorted the 1000+ protesters and worked together with the organizers to make it all a peaceful affair).

I do not sympathize with the more radical parts of the BLM movement, because just like what happened at the White House, they don't represent the vast majority of protesters. The only difference is that there was no-one in any position of authority egging people on to act aggressively towards the police.

Imagine our current President voicing his displeasure with the election results, but telling his followers to abide by the legal process and to go home since that route closed for good with the last challenge in December. This wouldn't stop fringe groups still marching on the Capitol, but it would not be sanctioned and be treated completely different than the current situation.

Heck, just today the President used the Twitter POTUS account to edge his supporters on to disrupt the inauguration on Jan 20th. This should not be allowed, it goes beyond Freedom of Speech.

[chinothegeeko]

I took part in BLM protests. I did not protest against the police, I protested to give voice to the fact that Black Lives are treated differently than White Lives. Our BLM protests in our quiet part of the midwest US were non-violent, and the police participated (as in, they helped direct traffic, escorted the 1000+ protesters and worked together with the organizers to make it all a peaceful affair).

I do not sympathize with the more radical parts of the BLM movement, because just like what happened at the White House, they don't represent the vast majority of protesters. The only difference is that there was no-one in any position of authority egging people on to act aggressively towards the police.

Imagine our current President voicing his displeasure with the election results, but telling his followers to abide by the legal process and to go home since that route closed for good with the last challenge in December. This wouldn't stop fringe groups still marching on the Capitol, but it would not be sanctioned and be treated completely different than the current situation.

Heck, just today the President used the Twitter POTUS account to edge his supporters on to disrupt the inauguration on Jan 20th. This should not be allowed, it goes beyond Freedom of Speech.

Shaun king for one. Many many more. Pelosi. Kamala Harris. Did you not watch the news back then. Even that was on cnn, and Colbert show.

[Phil B]

Shaun king for one. Many many more.

Who is Shaun King?

[chinothegeeko]

Who is Shaun King?

Never mind. You have been sheltered big time. I’m not being an ass but if you support BLM and have no idea who he is then you really didn’t look into it. Just like all those donations supported the black communities. Lol.

[redghostx]

@nlevo I have a unique perspective on the federal election stuff, as I work for the provincial/federal bodies during those periods. I have no idea how the mail in ballots work in each state, but our recent provincial election was very interesting to see the huge influx of mail in ballots and how they were handled/inspected/and eventually counted (plus how many or few double voters or issue there were with mail in ballots and how they were resolved).

I had not considered the difference between a republic and democracy system and will have to research it more.

[Brystheguy]

48 minutes ago, chinothegeeko said:

Never mind. You have been sheltered big time. I’m not being an ass but if you support BLM and have no idea who he is then you really didn’t look into it. Just like all those donations supported the black communities. Lol.

He can't empathize with others if he doesn't know who Shaun King is? I don't think he can win here. You treat him like a child because he doesn't know who Shaun King is and I feel like if he did know who he was people would be saying he can't make up his own mind and is being led. I feel he's being pegged either way.

58 minutes ago, chinothegeeko said:

59 minutes ago, chinothegeeko said:

Shaun king for one. Many many more. Pelosi. Kamala Harris. Did you not watch the news back then. Even that was on cnn, and Colbert show.

what question are you answering here?

[$20 on joe vs dan]

1 hour ago, NIevo said:

 

  We have to have a balance between 90% of the country that is more conservative and the other 10% that is the huge liberal cities who control a large portion of a few states. 

sorry but 90% of the country's population do not live outside of large cities...the voting that was demonstrated simply speaks more of it being likely opposite.

Also based on the census:https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2015/cb15-33.html

U.S. Cities are Home to 62.7 Percent of the U.S. Population, but Comprise Just 3.5 Percent of Land Area

now if your argument is based on land mass representation then maybe but that's not a rational argument since we're talking about people...it's really easy to see a map of red and blue and think most of the country is red because of land mass coverage. 

Edited January 9, 2021 by $20 on joe vs dan

[$20 on joe vs dan]

1 hour ago, chinothegeeko said:

Never mind. You have been sheltered big time. I’m not being an ass but if you support BLM and have no idea who he is then you really didn’t look into it. Just like all those donations supported the black communities. Lol.

I recognize the roots of BLM are not consistent with what many consider are the BLM ideals.  But just like folks support Trump policies but dislike the guy...folks can support BLM ideals and not have to know much about its roots.

If a selfish egomanic wants peace...I want peace too...we can both want peace.  I've got friends who are so into all aspects of the movements including each leader's entire life history...it's not about that. We're not following Jesus, we are following ideals we believe in which may have been brought to light by flawed individuals.

I will say don't donate money blindly tho. Do some due diligence because $ in teh wrong hands can often times do more harm than good.

[$20 on joe vs dan]

1 hour ago, NIevo said:

 

Lol...beat me to it.  Both those groups are worse then anything the right has shown.

I would suggest not to lump all the groups together; because anyone looking can find critical flaws with any group; especially the extremists...for every BLM protesters that throws a molotov cocktail and yells profanity at the police there are thousand of 100% peaceful protestors just like there's a thousand peaceful protestors OUTSIDE the Capitol for every protestor inside the Capitol causing trouble...lumping folks together w/ their extremist counterparts only makes folks defensive and does not facilitate open discussion. 

[Jbad87]

7 hours ago, Phil B said:

You mean like the proven fact that the RNC embedded Proud Boys rioters in the otherwise peaceful BLM protest this summer, leading up to one person dead?

I do not disagree and I didnt say the opposite. I'm not speaking to a political side I'm speaking to strategy. Misinformation and embedded agents are a solid strategy employed by everyone. I wish more people would look at the individuals acting far outside of norms and ask why and not assume they are a specific "something". 

[$20 on joe vs dan]

1 minute ago, Jbad87 said:

I do not disagree and I didnt say the opposite. I'm not speaking to a political side I'm speaking to strategy. Misinformation and embedded agents are a solid strategy employed by everyone. I wish more people would look at the individuals acting far outside of norms and ask why and not assume they are a specific "something". 

I've had this argument with some friends. dismissing BLM protests because of the wolves in sheep's clothing is akin to killing all the sheep or burning down the forest that hides the culprits.

it's weird how literally a handful of extremist get 90% of the press...there was an attack on cops in Southern Cal and they were hospitalized. headlines saying BLM protestors outside the hospital were yelling for them to die...when I drilled down to the details it was literally 3 idiots yelling those awful things.  When did 3 idiots yelling something stupid justify headlines?

[Darth_Raichu]

1 hour ago, Phil B said:

I took part in BLM protests. I did not protest against the police, I protested to give voice to the fact that Black Lives are treated differently than White Lives. Our BLM protests in our quiet part of the midwest US were non-violent, and the police participated (as in, they helped direct traffic, escorted the 1000+ protesters and worked together with the organizers to make it all a peaceful affair).

I do not sympathize with the more radical parts of the BLM movement, because just like what happened at the White House, they don't represent the vast majority of protesters. The only difference is that there was no-one in any position of authority egging people on to act aggressively towards the police.

Imagine our current President voicing his displeasure with the election results, but telling his followers to abide by the legal process and to go home since that route closed for good with the last challenge in December. This wouldn't stop fringe groups still marching on the Capitol, but it would not be sanctioned and be treated completely different than the current situation.

Heck, just today the President used the Twitter POTUS account to edge his supporters on to disrupt the inauguration on Jan 20th. This should not be allowed, it goes beyond Freedom of Speech.

I am glad the BLM protests in your area were done peacefully.  However, that was simply not the case in many parts of the country.  Again, the question is by your definition, should the more radical parts of BLM be allowed to express their hatred against the police ?

[Darth_Raichu]

16 minutes ago, $20 on joe vs dan said:

I recognize the roots of BLM are not consistent with what many consider are the BLM ideals.

So, did the movement really adopt those ideals ?  Or is the movement still consistent with its roots but people projected their ideals to the movement?

[NIevo]

Sorry, but until people can realize that organizations like BLM are racist themselves, we can never get past racism or have a serious conversation about it.

39 minutes ago, $20 on joe vs dan said:

sorry but 90% of the country's population do not live outside of large cities...the voting that was demonstrated simply speaks more of it being likely opposite.

Also based on the census:https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2015/cb15-33.html

U.S. Cities are Home to 62.7 Percent of the U.S. Population, but Comprise Just 3.5 Percent of Land Area

now if your argument is based on land mass representation then maybe but that's not a rational argument since we're talking about people...it's really easy to see a map of red and blue and think most of the country is red because of land mass coverage. 

Our Constitution and voting system was designed not to allow cities to control the country.  I wasn't referring to populations with %'s.

[exracer327]

Sorry for the length of this, but there really is a common thread to it.

First, realizing that so many states did a first-time way of voting, I'm a bit stumped why we didn't mandate full-on recounts in every state.  That would have been a good way to eliminate any "illegitimate vote" garbage.  Second, I think it is pretty clear that we need to standardize any federal presidential election (meaning same rules, practices, etc.)  This taking weeks to count votes in some states while others are completed within 24 hours is beyond ridiculous.

re: hate speech.  I feel like most of us would agree hate-speech is hurtful, inciting violence, etc.  But when I have Christian friends being told that talking to their non-Christian friends about Jesus is hate-speech, then I get worried about who defines "hate speech".  For a Christian, that is the most loving thing they could possibly do.  People may disagree, but is it really "hate speech"?  

It behooves us to pay attention to history just how quickly a democratic country can go to pot in the name of progress.  The Weimar Republic in Germany collapsed under the weight of restitution payments and hyper-inflation, post-WW1.  It gave rise to the National Socialist Worker's Party (anti-big business, anti-wealthy class, anti-capitalism).  After coming to power the NAZIs made all other political parties illegal.  Then, if you weren't a NAZI party member, you were deemed a threat.  I have spoken to German immigrants whose families were sent to work camps (not concentration camps).  Hate speech was what the government told you it was. 

"Provda" (The ONLY News Agency in the former Soviet Union) means "truth" in the Russian language.  It was gov't controlled and told the people what the gov't approved.  Everything else was "hate speech".

So who are the arbiters of truth in the USA?  I would dare to say it's not the USA government otherwise Trump would not have been endlessly dogged for four years.  So from whom are we receiving "truth"?  When facebook, twitter, and YouTube are shutting down people on their platform because they have a different political view than their parent company, we can debate if we have an issue and if they are actually publishing or not.  Of course, that discussion won't be allowed on their platform.... so people try to set up alternate platforms to discuss.  Except, those platforms are being blocked by other privately-owned providers.  The end result?  Whatever the media giants permit becomes truth.  Everything else is deemed "hate speech".

Where then is the dissenting voice?  It is effectively cancelled.  Although those you oppose today may get cancelled, what is to stop you from getting cancelled tomorrow?

 

There is a quote from a Lutheran Pastor who lived through WWII - Rev. Martin Niemoller:

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out - because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak for me.

Pastor Niemoller served most of WWII in a NAZI concentration camp because he dared to speak out against the mainstream attitude, not just of the government but the press as well.

 

If we think what happened in Germany can never happen in the USA, then we're not paying attention.

I pray for love, peace, mercy, grace, and forgiveness within our government leaders and our nation as a whole.  

 

On a less serious note.  My last complaint tonight is not having enough money for all the rumored Star Wars sets coming out in 2021.

[NIevo]

48 minutes ago, Brystheguy said:

He can't empathize with others if he doesn't know who Shaun King is? I don't think he can win here. You treat him like a child because he doesn't know who Shaun King is and I feel like if he did know who he was people would be saying he can't make up his own mind and is being led. I feel he's being pegged either way.

 

What Chino was referring to is the simple fact that you have someone supporting a group that has no clue as to what the group stands for nor who else supports or funds the group.  It's what many of us have been referring to in regards to social media, people pick a side because of what others might say or what they've heard from a organization or company without actually knowing the truth and thinking for themselves.

[NIevo]

2 minutes ago, exracer327 said:

Sorry for the length of this, but there really is a common thread to it.

First, realizing that so many states did a first-time way of voting, I'm a bit stumped why we didn't mandate full-on recounts in every state.  That would have been a good way to eliminate any "illegitimate vote" garbage.  Second, I think it is pretty clear that we need to standardize any federal presidential election (meaning same rules, practices, etc.)  This taking weeks to count votes in some states while others are completed within 24 hours is beyond ridiculous.

re: hate speech.  I feel like most of us would agree hate-speech is hurtful, inciting violence, etc.  But when I have Christian friends being told that talking to their non-Christian friends about Jesus is hate-speech, then I get worried about who defines "hate speech".  For a Christian, that is the most loving thing they could possibly do.  People may disagree, but is it really "hate speech"?  

It behooves us to pay attention to history just how quickly a democratic country can go to pot in the name of progress.  The Weimar Republic in Germany collapsed under the weight of restitution payments and hyper-inflation, post-WW1.  It gave rise to the National Socialist Worker's Party (anti-big business, anti-wealthy class, anti-capitalism).  After coming to power the NAZIs made all other political parties illegal.  Then, if you weren't a NAZI party member, you were deemed a threat.  I have spoken to German immigrants whose families were sent to work camps (not concentration camps).  Hate speech was what the government told you it was. 

"Provda" (The ONLY News Agency in the former Soviet Union) means "truth" in the Russian language.  It was gov't controlled and told the people what the gov't approved.  Everything else was "hate speech".

So who are the arbiters of truth in the USA?  I would dare to say it's not the USA government otherwise Trump would not have been endlessly dogged for four years.  So from whom are we receiving "truth"?  When facebook, twitter, and YouTube are shutting down people on their platform because they have a different political view than their parent company, we can debate if we have an issue and if they are actually publishing or not.  Of course, that discussion won't be allowed on their platform.... so people try to set up alternate platforms to discuss.  Except, those platforms are being blocked by other privately-owned providers.  The end result?  Whatever the media giants permit becomes truth.  Everything else is deemed "hate speech".

Where then is the dissenting voice?  It is effectively cancelled.  Although those you oppose today may get cancelled, what is to stop you from getting cancelled tomorrow?

 

There is a quote from a Lutheran Pastor who lived through WWII - Rev. Martin Niemoller:

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out - because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak for me.

Pastor Niemoller served most of WWII in a NAZI concentration camp because he dared to speak out against the mainstream attitude, not just of the government but the press as well.

 

If we think what happened in Germany can never happen in the USA, then we're not paying attention.

I pray for love, peace, mercy, grace, and forgiveness within our government leaders and our nation as a whole.  

 

On a less serious note.  My last complaint tonight is not having enough money for all the rumored Star Wars sets coming out in 2021.

Very well stated and I fully agree.

[Alpinemaps]

When did 3 idiots yelling something stupid justify headlines?

When it’s enough to get you to click that headline and drill down to read that entire store. Because you are the product. You’re being pushed advertising. You’ve clicked through, which brings ad revenue. You’re exposed to those adverts, and hopefully you will click one of those adverts and the cycle will continue, you buy something or you get more severed to you. In the end, you’re paying the bills.

[chinothegeeko]

I've had this argument with some friends. dismissing BLM protests because of the wolves in sheep's clothing is akin to killing all the sheep or burning down the forest that hides the culprits.
it's weird how literally a handful of extremist get 90% of the press...there was an attack on cops in Southern Cal and they were hospitalized. headlines saying BLM protestors outside the hospital were yelling for them to die...when I drilled down to the details it was literally 3 idiots yelling those awful things.  When did 3 idiots yelling something stupid justify headlines?

Are you talking about the ambush on the cops in the car? There were literally tens of thousands easily on social media( Twitter, IG) mad those cops were not killed. Saying they got what they deserved and too bad they all didn’t die. Like I said it’s easy to follow one narrative but you gotta follow the whole picture. Most think it’s a waste of their time and I was one of those people before this year. Never again. So much real information is being held from all of us. We are all the real victims and that includes people outside the US. However, if the US falls then we are all doomed. This is just the beginning and I personally do not believe we will ever unite as one again in our lifetime. I pray/hope that is not true. Either all this stuff that’s been talked about forever like Epstein and wiener laptop etc needs declassified now or why would anyone believe anything that is said. Let’s find out who the real criminals are Instead of letting accusations control us fighting each other non stop.

Also lots of activity throughout the day and especially night yesterday at my local air force base. Something is going down.