• Zoift [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    78
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago
    1. He traveled to start shit. He didnt work, live, or have family at a car lot.

    2. His intent was to start shit. “Protecting” an empty car lot is the most hamfisted shitlib handwaving. Muh Private Property!

    3. Legally speaking, nobody gives a shit nerd.

    4. Once again, nobody gives a fuck about the banality of gun laws.

    5. He acted like a dipshit cracker, theres your nuance

    6. Kyle, and everyone who thinks he’s cool, should throw a clot. That should be specific enough.

      • Zoift [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        55
        ·
        1 year ago
        1. Hell yeah, drown me in banality baby. Tell me about his deep meaningful connection to secondhand autosales.

        2. Protecting private property, hell yeah, jerk me harder locke. When i grab guns to head to a counterprotest, its because i care so much about classical conceptions of property rights.

        3. I could go on a tangent about bourgeois “Legal frameworks”, but its much easier to say “Death to America” and move on.

        4. America delenda est

        5. I dont respect you, or your opinions.

        6. We can do both & the only thing worth constructing here is a pit.

      • ZapataCadabra [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        52
        ·
        1 year ago

        While you may disagree with his reasons, there are individuals who genuinely believe in protecting private property during unrest. It’s a complex issue that shouldn’t be reduced to simplistic labels.

        So you think broken windows are more important than the lives of black people. You’re a bad person and I hope you get to read that before you get banned.

      • Egon [they/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        47
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Lmao the legal perspective isn’t important at all. The law isn’t some infallible deity, it’s a dude in a gown, and the whole trial made it obvious who the judge was siding with. Behaving as if the legal perspective is in any way objective - or really relevant - is silly. It’s also circular logic “the law decided he was innocent, so therefore the law was right”. Had the law decided he was guilty the law would’ve been right too.

        For the same reason it’s not crucial to understand gun laws. They aren’t upheld by impartial arbiters. Laws are tools of oppression wielded by the hegemonic power.

        Why is a respectful dialogue crucial? You keep using this word as if it means anything in and of itself. I see no reason to be polite to someone that thinks it’s cool and good to travel miles and miles with the purpose of murdering political adversaries.

        Why is it you think constructive conversation is some sort of right? If you cannot handle statements like “I think all slavers should be killed”, then I don’t want to have a polite conversation with you, and there is most certainly nothing constructive that can come from it.

        Also you might want to try to form your own thoughts for once, rather than have some silly chatbot tell you what to think.