@c78934303@_silly_jane@nathandg12@writcertiorari@BarneyFlames I read the article.
People were shot. Few plebeians for the crime of not having much. There was English philosophy among officers which is why they were shot when they expressed cowardice.
@not__vee@MasterMaliq "So why is it that many still get profiled and treated as suspects? Is it fear, or hate?"
Suspect and fear. The cops stop and frisk them often enough to warrant suspect and fear.
@Oneiorosgrip@HatemongerPlus@FeelsWhats If that is how you see outside input, it may be so. If you don't want it, if it is effort taken from your way to respond, do not address what I say. Your world is your choice. What your world involves is what you entangle yourself in. I gave you an option. You could've said no.
@Oneiorosgrip@HatemongerPlus@FeelsWhats Not at all, generally it is my opposing side making a claim. From there a discussion at most lasts 30 minutes. A style of argument has to be a mess, arguing is a mess. You go here, there, anywhere as arguing often is reactive.
@mmm_mmph1991@James32980438@JadeAtrophis Over here such things are affectionately named "triangle drug" as they have a warning sign triangular on them. You're advised to avoid them in your drinks and if you take any, never drink.
@c78934303@_silly_jane@nathandg12@writcertiorari@BarneyFlames Give me the cases on the executions for PTSD. Insubordination discounted since in a real shit of a case you'd get shot for that whether or not you had PTSD.
Some autistic people were respected, some not. Some people were respected, most not in the general population too.
@Oneiorosgrip@HatemongerPlus@FeelsWhats You don't need to let anything deflect. When you are on the receiving end of that argument, you can steer only the rape into the rape box. Again, I've been there, done that. If you waste effort into it, you can actually adress that arguing style and point out its flaws.
@Oneiorosgrip@HatemongerPlus@FeelsWhats There's no me allowing or disallowing dishonest arguing tactics. They will exist even in a vacuum. You can approach those tactics in such a way to point out the dishonesty.
@Oneiorosgrip@HatemongerPlus@FeelsWhats Well of course my view includes my thoughts on the view. To argue, to discuss. They're two sides of a coin. Which one you see depends on how you look at it.
@Oneiorosgrip@HatemongerPlus@FeelsWhats Not at all. You removed agency from being subject in violent crime where there was none. If you concede agency from a hookup then it's on you. Rape and hookups aren't the same, don't let your opponent pretend they are.
@Oneiorosgrip@HatemongerPlus@FeelsWhats No you haven't. You give them what you give. If you give them rape and don't attack the bailey when they move to that, it's your mistake.
@Oneiorosgrip@HatemongerPlus@FeelsWhats Don't see it as an argument. I was giving you my view of what you __could__ do __if you wanted to__. I never approached it as an argument. I was discussing other effective strategies that can be used in similar situations.
@Oneiorosgrip@HatemongerPlus@FeelsWhats It doesn't. I've personally had these discussions with people and moved many from thinking abortion should be mostly unregulated to seeing it for the fucked up mess it is. If you argue your points properly, you might change minds. I have. I've also "won" arguments which feels fun
@Oneiorosgrip@HatemongerPlus@FeelsWhats Not really. Legitimacy for ending 99% of abortions that happen today is not ground those people ever fought for or want but if you can squeeze it out of them, it's not a bad deal.
@Oneiorosgrip@HatemongerPlus@FeelsWhats You know yourself and your opponents best so do what works for you. I my self try to avoid engaging those people in the 1st place but when I do, I do waste a lot of time on a spiritual DDOS attack.