just a normal guy kevin

See post above yours!

Take a look at why we focus on one instead of the other and whether we use these sorts of incidents to illuminate the larger situation or distract/deflect from the larger situation.
One take is to highlight the UC Berkeley violence as a means to ADDING it to the growing list of troubling and extreme actions occurring from multiple 'sides' and filling out the conversation further. How does violence present itself in troubling political climates? Is the value of violence ruled by a simplified ideology such as "All violence is bad always" and, if so, is that ideology invoked every time a violent act is committed? If not, is there a pattern or common link between the cases where violence is denounced or the cases when it is overlooked? Could there be a biased advantage to minimizing some acts of violence while highlighting others? Is that bias justified if it contributes to less overall violence or is a response to more sinister forms of violence? Or is all bias wrong, again raising the question of whether we want to place blanket simplified rules on things?
The point of all those questions is that simply denouncing violence can be important but its also very basic and offers little value without asking or answering those follow up questions. Similarly, it can also be counter-productive. Stripping out context and foregoing follow-up reflection can feel ideologically pure and re-affirming, since you're taking a wild and insanely unpredictable thing and making it solvable with 1 sentence, but it's impractical. For example, there exists a scenario where an individual can use calls for peace, something that without context or further reflection is universally good, as a way to deflect and distract from the larger problem of violence, which is harmful and not productive in practice/reality. This was done with the "All Lives Matter" reaction. It is done in this thread where people who have sat in silence on many instances of violence and troubling international threats suddenly appear when the situation involves liberal college students and begin calling for peace or singling out specific users and calling for them to behave. The calls for peace are not asking us to look at the larger world and how violence has infiltrated that political climate...they are asking us to hyper-focus on this one incident and, effectively, narrow our sights and focus.

Take a look at why we focus on one instead of the other and whether we use these sorts of incidents to illuminate the larger situation or distract/deflect from the larger situation.
One take is to highlight the UC Berkeley violence as a means to ADDING it to the growing list of troubling and extreme actions occurring from multiple 'sides' and filling out the conversation further. How does violence present itself in troubling political climates? Is the value of violence ruled by a simplified ideology such as "All violence is bad always" and, if so, is that ideology invoked every time a violent act is committed? If not, is there a pattern or common link between the cases where violence is denounced or the cases when it is overlooked? Could there be a biased advantage to minimizing some acts of violence while highlighting others? Is that bias justified if it contributes to less overall violence or is a response to more sinister forms of violence? Or is all bias wrong, again raising the question of whether we want to place blanket simplified rules on things?
The point of all those questions is that simply denouncing violence can be important but its also very basic and offers little value without asking or answering those follow up questions. Similarly, it can also be counter-productive. Stripping out context and foregoing follow-up reflection can feel ideologically pure and re-affirming, since you're taking a wild and insanely unpredictable thing and making it solvable with 1 sentence, but it's impractical. For example, there exists a scenario where an individual can use calls for peace, something that without context or further reflection is universally good, as a way to deflect and distract from the larger problem of violence, which is harmful and not productive in practice/reality. This was done with the "All Lives Matter" reaction. It is done in this thread where people who have sat in silence on many instances of violence and troubling international threats suddenly appear when the situation involves liberal college students and begin calling for peace or singling out specific users and calling for them to behave. The calls for peace are not asking us to look at the larger world and how violence has infiltrated that political climate...they are asking us to hyper-focus on this one incident and, effectively, narrow our sights and focus.

Take a look at why we focus on one instead of the other and whether we use these sorts of incidents to illuminate the larger situation or distract/deflect from the larger situation.
One take is to highlight the UC Berkeley violence as a means to ADDING it to the growing list of troubling and extreme actions occurring from multiple 'sides' and filling out the conversation further. How does violence present itself in troubling political climates? Is the value of violence ruled by a simplified ideology such as "All violence is bad always" and, if so, is that ideology invoked every time a violent act is committed? If not, is there a pattern or common link between the cases where violence is denounced or the cases when it is overlooked? Could there be a biased advantage to minimizing some acts of violence while highlighting others? Is that bias justified if it contributes to less overall violence or is a response to more sinister forms of violence? Or is all bias wrong, again raising the question of whether we want to place blanket simplified rules on things?
The point of all those questions is that simply denouncing violence can be important but its also very basic and offers little value without asking or answering those follow up questions. Similarly, it can also be counter-productive. Stripping out context and foregoing follow-up reflection can feel ideologically pure and re-affirming, since you're taking a wild and insanely unpredictable thing and making it solvable with 1 sentence, but it's impractical. For example, there exists a scenario where an individual can use calls for peace, something that without context or further reflection is universally good, as a way to deflect and distract from the larger problem of violence, which is harmful and not productive in practice/reality. This was done with the "All Lives Matter" reaction. It is done in this thread where people who have sat in silence on many instances of violence and troubling international threats suddenly appear when the situation involves liberal college students and begin calling for peace or singling out specific users and calling for them to behave. The calls for peace are not asking us to look at the larger world and how violence has infiltrated that political climate...they are asking us to hyper-focus on this one incident and, effectively, narrow our sights and focus.

Take a look at why we focus on one instead of the other and whether we use these sorts of incidents to illuminate the larger situation or distract/deflect from the larger situation.
One take is to highlight the UC Berkeley violence as a means to ADDING it to the growing list of troubling and extreme actions occurring from multiple 'sides' and filling out the conversation further. How does violence present itself in troubling political climates? Is the value of violence ruled by a simplified ideology such as "All violence is bad always" and, if so, is that ideology invoked every time a violent act is committed? If not, is there a pattern or common link between the cases where violence is denounced or the cases when it is overlooked? Could there be a biased advantage to minimizing some acts of violence while highlighting others? Is that bias justified if it contributes to less overall violence or is a response to more sinister forms of violence? Or is all bias wrong, again raising the question of whether we want to place blanket simplified rules on things?
The point of all those questions is that simply denouncing violence can be important but its also very basic and offers little value without asking or answering those follow up questions. Similarly, it can also be counter-productive. Stripping out context and foregoing follow-up reflection can feel ideologically pure and re-affirming, since you're taking a wild and insanely unpredictable thing and making it solvable with 1 sentence, but it's impractical. For example, there exists a scenario where an individual can use calls for peace, something that without context or further reflection is universally good, as a way to deflect and distract from the larger problem of violence, which is harmful and not productive in practice/reality. This was done with the "All Lives Matter" reaction. It is done in this thread where people who have sat in silence on many instances of violence and troubling international threats suddenly appear when the situation involves liberal college students and begin calling for peace or singling out specific users and calling for them to behave. The calls for peace are not asking us to look at the larger world and how violence has infiltrated that political climate...they are asking us to hyper-focus on this one incident and, effectively, narrow our sights and focus.

At least, the UC Berkeley incident has finally given us an appropriate opportunity to talk about peace. The last few weeks have been so boring and barren of any incidents or world events that could serve as immediate examples of why peace, understanding, and tolerance are important. If we believe in true peace, we should focus all our energy and attention on this specific incident and resist temptation to look away at other events occurring in the world.

Wasn't WAXXX a small business owner who helped create our economy and was tired of being penalized by Barack Obama and liberal over-regulation? Now he is a backpacking Russian scene kid who wants to come to America? What happened to posters keeping one consistent false backstory?

Wasn't WAXXX a small business owner who helped create our economy and was tired of being penalized by Barack Obama and liberal over-regulation? Now he is a backpacking Russian scene kid who wants to come to America? What happened to posters keeping one consistent false backstory?

Wasn't WAXXX a small business owner who helped create our economy and was tired of being penalized by Barack Obama and liberal over-regulation? Now he is a backpacking Russian scene kid who wants to come to America? What happened to posters keeping one consistent false backstory?

Wasn't WAXXX a small business owner who helped create our economy and was tired of being penalized by Barack Obama and liberal over-regulation? Now he is a backpacking Russian scene kid who wants to come to America? What happened to posters keeping one consistent false backstory?

Our family dog used to play fetch with itself all alone in the backyard when it was bored too.

I think you are on to something. Bake's "comedy" was always punching down and he would go on those long rants about how fascism is cool and, if you don't agree, you are less of a man.

Pretty sure fungi is WAXXX playing some character that he imagines is a cutting critique of the stereotypical VC Hot Topic scene kid and playing his own aggressor to prove some point about how liberals are the true violent aggressors.
 
Otherwise, a random scene kid who signed up to the forum on Friday night and has already been trolling other threads really hates WAXXX and wants him to be lit on fire for no reason.

Pretty sure fungi is WAXXX playing some character that he imagines is a cutting critique of the stereotypical VC Hot Topic scene kid and playing his own aggressor to prove some point about how liberals are the true violent aggressors.
 
Otherwise, a random scene kid who signed up to the forum on Friday night and has already been trolling other threads really hates WAXXX and wants him to be lit on fire for no reason.

Pretty sure fungi is WAXXX playing some character that he imagines is a cutting critique of the stereotypical VC Hot Topic scene kid and playing his own aggressor to prove some point about how liberals are the true violent aggressors.
 
Otherwise, a random scene kid who signed up to the forum on Friday night and has already been trolling other threads really hates WAXXX and wants him to be lit on fire for no reason.

I think you are on to something. Bake's "comedy" was always punching down and he would go on those long rants about how fascism is cool and, if you don't agree, you are less of a man.

Pretty sure fungi is WAXXX playing some character that he imagines is a cutting critique of the stereotypical VC Hot Topic scene kid and playing his own aggressor to prove some point about how liberals are the true violent aggressors.
 
Otherwise, a random scene kid who signed up to the forum on Friday night and has already been trolling other threads really hates WAXXX and wants him to be lit on fire for no reason.

Pretty sure fungi is WAXXX playing some character that he imagines is a cutting critique of the stereotypical VC Hot Topic scene kid and playing his own aggressor to prove some point about how liberals are the true violent aggressors.
 
Otherwise, a random scene kid who signed up to the forum on Friday night and has already been trolling other threads really hates WAXXX and wants him to be lit on fire for no reason.

Pretty sure fungi is WAXXX playing some character that he imagines is a cutting critique of the stereotypical VC Hot Topic scene kid and playing his own aggressor to prove some point about how liberals are the true violent aggressors.
 
Otherwise, a random scene kid who signed up to the forum on Friday night and has already been trolling other threads really hates WAXXX and wants him to be lit on fire for no reason.

I'm pretty sure both WAXXX and Fungi are actually Bake.

I saved over $400 by using my self-control.

bake your whole schtick of acting hardcore and calling people losers is getting old. learn a new trick.

GatorPride is definitely bake.

No post

bake your whole schtick of acting hardcore and calling people losers is getting old. learn a new trick.