Starker on 28/3/2019 at 06:52
I mean, technically the article was correct. ((((A part of ) something attached to) something connected to) the room that was in) the dorm was set on fire and, who knows, these students might well have been liberals.
Renzatic on 28/3/2019 at 07:51
Technically correct. The best kind of correct!
Yeah, he set the kid's dorm room on fire, in much the same way that kicking over your neighbors garbage can could be considered a violent act leading to wanton destruction of private property.
Trance on 28/3/2019 at 11:42
And so it's revealed that yet another right-winger who goes on all the time about how the leftists at TTLG are all so easily manipulated by their media intake turns out to be someone who is easily manipulated by his media intake.
Draxil on 28/3/2019 at 12:21
Screw that.
My family lost every material possession we owned in a house fire on March 2 of this year. My wife was at work, my kids and I left the house at 1 pm, and by 6 PM the fire was bad enough that insurance is saying the house is over the 75% mark of damage:value. Three pets dead (gerbils, but it hit the kids hard--the dog we had planned to get after Christmas would have been dead if our searches had been more fruitful), and a couple hundred thousand dollars in property damage. All from a fire that probably started off much smaller than the deliberately set one in this instance.
These three assholes lit a fire on someone's door in an
occupied building at midnight, and then walked away. It's ridiculous to overstate the danger and damage, as Tony's post did. It's also irresponsible and fucking stupid to portray it as an example of right wing overreaction. The funny thing about fire is that it so rapidly can get out of control. A poorly spliced wire from a rehab someone else performed 15-20 years ago turned a home where we had celebrated 10 Christmases and 50+ birthdays into an uninhabitable wreck in a couple of hours.
(
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/ni_ZR8mlESMuec7bwncpmWB7bOmn1IXcjUDKXKVtlskjvPIDbSxesiIsj0KxK3wb065GSaCKFIlcOmRwMKFXwen-cnB641QKsx8O7IT65y04w8BfyMmpTedNIQTJli7RvGZOjbIeJ68=w2400) This took hundreds of hours of work in my off hours. It doesn't look like much, but it's an impressive change from the original 1960's kitchen. I had the room down to rafters, studs, and joists, and turned it back into that on my own. The quartz counter tops were the only thing I paid to have installed. 3-4 hours after I left, it turned into (
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/qKGT3K7mFJE7lkoLUlMDIB5MlvHvVQ_KyPc_x-nGyQgVfiC7DQ09-W2kR3juo6mc401Jy_qY0ghJVSOgGBbQsnsPogazAca9oQUfrLEoEb2Gr3fG_gDwTQnM5yyWQS5l04u6RHNLgv0=w2400) this. Those three stupid motherfuckers set a fire, likely politically motivated, and left. You can downplay that, you can downplay the egging on the New Zealand nationalist, but it's a degradation of political discourse and civil society in our respective countries and should be condemned by anyone that truly desires a less polarized political atmosphere.
icemann on 28/3/2019 at 12:41
Australian nationalist. Not that I'm happy about him being an aussie.
Trance on 28/3/2019 at 12:45
I'll take a fire that burned a piece of paper and an egg hitting someone in the head over a guy driving his car into a crowd and killing someone under it and two mosques full of people being massacred by gunfire any day. The point is precisely what did happen here, not what could have happened, that makes it an overreaction. Especially with the immediate painting of the perpetrators as left-wing radicals when they have no proof of that whatsoever, and the "why" of the story hasn't even come out.
My condolences for your loss.
Starker on 28/3/2019 at 15:11
Sorry to hear about your house and pets, but this wasn't a "deliberately set fire" -- the kids just burned some paper on the door, so that it scorched it a little bit. And why do you assume this was the work of liberals anyway? College kids do all kinds of stupid things and they might have burned the paper just for fun, not as some kind of a political statement.
My first reaction was much the same, that it could have been really serious, if the fire had spread. Setting fire to someone's room... no, even setting someone's door on fire could have disastrous consequences. But that's not what happened here. If that article is not a right-wing overreaction, I don't know what it is, then. You think that "The violent left is targeting students!" is civil political discourse?
Draxil on 28/3/2019 at 15:18
Quote Posted by Trance
I'll take a fire that burned a piece of paper and an egg hitting someone in the head over a guy driving his car into a crowd and killing someone under it and two mosques full of people being massacred by gunfire any day. The point is precisely what
did happen here, not what
could have happened, that makes it an overreaction. Especially with the immediate painting of the perpetrators as left-wing radicals when they have no proof of that whatsoever, and the "why" of the story hasn't even come out.
My condolences for your loss.
Thanks. We were all unharmed; the rest is just stuff.
I don't see why condemning violence of any sort has to be zero sum game, or why we have to accept or excuse assault or arson as "at least it wasn't mass murder". Screw that. Just condemn it, period. Nothing the victims of
any of these actions did merited being attacked. Anning essentially said "they had it coming." The response to the assault on him: "he had it coming". No belief or words, however repellent, justifies physical attack. I believe that; though if you were to come up and start vilely verbally abusing my wife or children in my presence I'd probably throat punch you. It wouldn't be justified, but I'd still do it.
Tony's article was ridiculous, but it's equally ridiculous to excuse or downplay arson, however "mild", at midnight in a dormitory. Likewise "egg boi". He went to a political event with an egg in his pocket. If an egg was OK, then how about a rock? Pepper spray? Acid? What if egg boi had just shot him in the head? Where do you draw the line at condemning violence against your political foes? If you don't like someone's political speech then don't attend the rally and don't vote for him. Campaign against him or debate him, humiliate him with better arguments and speeches. To resort to violence, and then to rally to the aggressor's defense, degrades civil society.
Draxil on 28/3/2019 at 15:37
Quote Posted by Starker
Sorry to hear about your house and pets, but this wasn't a "deliberately set fire" -- the kids just burned some paper on the door, so that it scorched it a little bit. And why do you assume this was the work of liberals anyway? College kids do all kinds of stupid things and they might have burned the paper just for fun, not as some kind of a political statement.
My first reaction was much the same, that it could have been really serious, if the fire had spread. Setting fire to someone's room... no, even setting someone's door on fire could have disastrous consequences. But that's not what happened here. If that article is not a right-wing overreaction, I don't know what it is, then. You think that "The violent left is targeting students!" is civil political discourse?
Thanks.
If you set fire to a paper on the door, that's deliberate. I don't know how bad the fire was, and neither do you. The report I read said the dorm room inhabitant blew it out. If he hadn't would it have gotten worse? I don't know, and neither do you. I do know a fire that started much smaller destroyed my house. I don't know their intention and, like you, don't assume they're liberal. It's equally as likely that it was alcohol fueled random arson. They're college students, and their reasoning and understanding of cause and effect is slightly better than my 3 year old's. They probably didn't understand how dangerous and stupid what they were doing was. Much like idiots that play with firearms, fireworks, or race automobiles on crowded highways. Lack of forethought doesn't excuse stupidity, though, and dislike of the "victim's" politics doesn't excuse their actions, either.
The article is overreaction. I never said Tony's stance was civil political discourse. I said I don't think excusing violence, from any side, furthers civil political discourse. My reaction: What they did, regardless of motivation, was dangerous and stupid and they should be appropriately punished. I don't know if it merits jail time, but expulsion from their schools and some community service sounds appropriate. Tony's stance and article is pure politics and hyperpartisan, and doesn't serve any useful purpose. Defending the asshats because their "victim" was on the right side of the political spectrum likewise doesn't serve any useful purpose.
Trance on 28/3/2019 at 15:40
Connolly could have put a rock in his pocket instead. Or pepper spray. Or acid. Maybe even could have brought a gun if he was really intent on that. If he had, the story would've elicited a very different reaction.
Point was, none of those things happened. He brought an egg. Something that stood very little, if any, chance of doing physical harm to the target, and whose only real purpose as a projectile is to humiliate the target and leave them dripping with albumen. So it's pretty silly to treat this act as equivalent to even a fistfight at a protest; they are just not even on the same level of seriousness.
I'd be happy to leave all violence out of the political sphere, and I agree that no acts of malice are justified, despite Anning's claims. But the left just isn't the group more in need of being told that. They're not the ones mailing pipebombs to political opponents, committing vehicular homicide, or slaughtering dozens of people with guns. There's an order of magnitude difference between the two groups in intensity, and if you're going to preach nonviolence, move your pulpit to the other side of the aisle.
