Nick Sandmann MAGA Kid Thread

[handgroen]

Finally I know which thread to stay out of

[MelBridgeman]

lets just let it die ..it's a big nothing burger

[BBQorMILDEW]

Originally Posted by station

I have zero interest in determining what actually happened or which of these characters is or isn't the worst person in history. Clearly we can only helplessly interpret what we think happened based on our own politics / ideals / cultural norms, etc. even with 2 hours of video evidence.

Instead, what's concerning to me is that teenage boys are being raised to think that taking a field trip to protest women's rights is a swell thing to do in 2019. I mean we know it's out there somewhere but it's certainly different to see that energy in the raw like that.

Those boys don't need to go to the white house to have tangerine grandpa Simpson shout some gibberish at them, or get puffball questions from Fox News hosts. In the video they act like the indigenous fellow literally walked out of history into real life and it occurred to me that these sheltered kids from a religious all-boys school in the deep south may have actually never seen a native person or native imagery except maybe in cartoons and football logos. (It turns out the state of Kentucky has an aboriginal population of only 9500 out of 4.4 million people. Alberta on the other hand has 250,000 out of just under 4 million and indigenous imagery is woven into our culture).

Getting served stale berders from chief MAGA will only reinforce their (likely) narrow world views. What those boys need is to go to a powwow, or billet an international student, read a smuggled copy of On The Origin Of Species, or go to college in NYC and maybe have a gay roommate. Instead of doxxing and shaming these kids or painting them as innocents unfairly maligned, the world should reach out to these kids and show them some s**t; let them see there is more out there than red hats and walls.

Killing babies isn’t a “woman’s rights” issue. It’s a moral one.

[Barnet Flame]

I just found this thread.

I’m out.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by BBQorMILDEW

Killing babies isn’t a “woman’s rights” issue. It’s a moral one.

It’s both. That’s why there’s a debate about it...

Even if it was just a moral issue, there’d have to be some reason to argue being pro-choice as a moral position, which would be (you guessed it) a woman’s right to choose.

It’s strange that some people think morality and ethics are some separate, magical thing that aren’t interconnected with literally everything else.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Women's rights issues are clearly moral issues. Really, just about everything in politics is at its core a moral issue. What BBQ is clearly trying to say is that if you're going to a pro-life rally, you're not there to "protest women's rights", you're there to protest what you see as killing babies. Because in your view abortion is murder, there can be no women's rights issue at stake, because women do not have the right to murder their babies. Whether you think that viewpoint is correct or not, it's at least internally consistent and coherent. Trying to characterize a pro-life event in the way station did is dishonest, because it doesn't accurately portray the other side's actual position on the issue.

Anyway, glad this is now a separate thread, have fun trolling each other, guys.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Women's rights issues are clearly moral issues. Really, just about everything in politics is at its core a moral issue. What BBQ is clearly trying to say is that if you're going to a pro-life rally, you're not there to "protest women's rights", you're there to protest what you see as killing babies. Because in your view abortion is murder, there can be no women's rights issue at stake, because women do not have the right to murder their babies. Whether you think that viewpoint is correct or not, it's at least internally consistent and coherent. Trying to characterize a pro-life event in the way station did is dishonest, because it doesn't accurately portray the other side's actual position on the issue.

Anyway, glad this is now a separate thread, have fun trolling each other, guys.

Not there to protest women’s rights, because you believe they don’t have rights in this space, is some pretty weird mental gymnastics.

That, or semantics. “I’m not protesting this technically because I simply choose not to acknowledge it’s existence” is not much different at all than protesting it’s existence, is it?

You’re just arguing for the sake of arguing, man.

[DiracSpike]

Originally Posted by icecube

I'm the facilitator of the gay straight alliance at my school for 4 of the last 7 years. I've marched in the pride parade as an ally for the last 10 years. I'm not gonna dignify MelBridgeman by conversing with him any longer. He's either a troll or a moron. Well, he's both if you ask me.

You're a teacher?? Jesus Christ I hope it's just gym.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Not there to protest women’s rights, because you believe they don’t have rights in this space, is some pretty weird mental gymnastics.

No, it's simply a completely opposing perspective on the issue. To put it another way, it's exactly the same as a pro-lifer coming in here and arguing that people attend pro-choice events because they want to demonstrate in support of their right to murder children. That's a dishonest characterization of the pro-choice viewpoint on the issue. It pre-supposes your characterization, which the other side does not take as a given at all. There's no mental gymnastics required at all, if you simply imagine what would follow logically from believing what a pro-life person believes as a starting position.

[CliffFletcher]

The Covington Scissor

Welcome to another controversy algorithmically designed to tear America apart.

In a short story published last October, “Sort by Controversial,” Scott Alexander imagines a Silicon Valley company that accidentally comes up with an algorithm to generate what it calls a “Scissor.” The scissor is a statement, an idea or a scenario that’s somehow perfectly calibrated to tear people apart — not just by generating disagreement, but by generating total incredulity that somebody could possibly disagree with your interpretation of the controversy, followed by escalating fury and paranoia and polarization, until the debate seems like a completely existential, win-or-perish fight...

It's still not clear if the initial surge of activity over this issue was a Russian op. If it wasn't, you can be sure they're taking notes and calibrating their tactics.

The mainstream media need to get their #### together and stop playing this toxic game. Stop jumping in with both feet hours or even minutes after seeing a tweet or a Youtube video. Stop stoking the fury of their audience. Editors and producers should ask themselves, as they're going through the story list for the day, if they're going to earn some guy in a cubicle in St. Petersberg a performance bonus. If they are, they should probably rethink their lineup.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

It's still not clear if the initial surge of activity over this issue was a Russian op.

I don't want to say that it doesn't matter whether it was or not, because obviously continued Russian interference in the USA is a problem. However, regardless of whether it was or not, the fact that it's exactly the sort of thing that furthers the IRA's explicit goals should be enough information to knock people out of their knee-jerk "pick a side" reaction and into the perspective of "the real problem is the existence of this controversy and its effects on the public discourse".

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

No, it's simply a completely opposing perspective on the issue. To put it another way, it's exactly the same as a pro-lifer coming in here and arguing that people attend pro-choice events because they want to demonstrate in support of their right to murder children. That's a dishonest characterization of the pro-choice viewpoint on the issue. It pre-supposes your characterization, which the other side does not take as a given at all. There's no mental gymnastics required at all, if you simply imagine what would follow logically from believing what a pro-life person believes as a starting position.

But that’s exactly what it is. Pro-choice is the position that it’s a woman’s right to kill an unborn child. That’s not a “nice” way of putting it, but that’s what it is. Pro-life is the position that women do not have the right to do that. That’s not the “nice” way of putting it, but that’s what it is.

Dressing it up as “women decide what they do with their body” vs “killing babies is wrong” is nice in the most simplistic way possible, but I don’t think either group would disagree with either position, so if that were truly the debate, there wouldn’t be one. What you’re suggesting is that neither side of aware of the consequences of their decision, which is untrue.

Again, the debate is absolutely about a woman’s right to kill a feotus. It’s not just a bit of one or the other, and saying “this has nothing to do with rights” is as dumb as saying “this has nothing to do with morals.” It’s both. No other way around it. If you think it’s just one, you’re not fit to consider the issue.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Morals and rights are two sides of the same coin. The point is that where one group of people believes that abortion is murder, it's pretty obvious that coming back at them and saying "you're denying our rights" won't make any sense from their perspective, because of their foundational belief that abortion is murder. Similarly, if you and I believed that abortion was murder, we wouldn't think that there was a right to perform it either (I'm assuming - I can only speak for me). No one has a right to murder, and a person's right to control what happens to their body in most situations does not, I assume, trump that principle for anyone. The fact that we don't believe it is murder is what allows for us to come to the conclusion that women's right to control what happens with their own bodies is dispositive.

We have different assumed premises. Station's characterization effectively assumes the pro-choice assumed premise - that abortion isn't murder - in the context where that premise is the fundamental source of disagreement between the two sides.

[icecube]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

You're a teacher?? Jesus Christ I hope it's just gym.

Nope. I brainwash upper middle class kids into radical left wing social justice warriors before they even set foot into a post secondary institution. And they love me for it.

[Scroopy Noopers]

- judges a kid mostly due to “smug look on his face”
- mostly replies with sarcastic smug gifs.

Cool.

[PepsiFree]

That was a pretty good gif selection though

[La Flames Fan]

Just gonna drop this here...

https://twitter.com/user/status/1087270294467751937

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

- judges a kid mostly due to “smug look on his face”
- mostly replies with sarcastic smug gifs.

Cool.

That's not fair to icecube, he also shares Twitter posts from random people that no one gives a #### about but somehow thinks sharing their opinion constitutes actual discussion on his part.

[icecube]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

That's not fair to icecube, he also shares Twitter posts from random people that no one gives a #### about but somehow thinks sharing their opinion constitutes actual discussion on his part.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by La Flames Fan

Just gonna drop this here...

https://twitter.com/user/status/1087270294467751937

This has already been widely debunked.

Next you're going to tell me they're making the white power symbol with their hands.