The 2020 George Floyd/BLM/Police Brutality Protests Discussion Thread

[Scaff]

Your arguments that Kyle Rittenhouse had less of a right to be out in public than the people COMMITING CRIMES ALL OVER THE PLACE as comical as they are impotent. I'm disappointed that more citizens weren't out keeping the peace.

Interesting that I didn't say that. So drop the strawman argument.

Systemic Racism DOES exist - it's called Affirmative Action. Other than that, It's the Boogeyman that racist people want SO MUCH to believe in, because it can be ANY reason, excuse or that you want it to be. Because THE SYSTEM is against you. I just can't accept that. Maybe it's because I'm not black. I believe that a person's character, ambition and life choices have more to do with how their life turns out than an insidious racism that plagues every aspect of society so thoroughly that it doesn't even leave any clear evidence that can be examined or addressed, and therefore it cannot be overcome!

First prove the problem exists. Do this by pointing out examples. Show me a current law, regulation or policy that is overtly racist, or clearly calls for preferential treatment based on race (besides Affirmative Action).

Once we have proof of systemic racism, we can address it and begin to correct it. Of course, the people who have built their careers on selling Systemic Racism don't WANT it fixed.

I posted it, you quite clearly didn't bother reading it. Not that it's the only source, peer reviewed and fully sourced studies have repeatedly shown this.

The only people who dismiss it out of hand in the manner you have done, and then try claiming the only racism is affirmative action, are, to be blunt racists.

 

[AZpocalypse]

They'll quit wasting an inordinate amount of tax dollars, generating revenue for municipalities with bogus citations, and not doing a damn thing about crime?


Your idea of a society is terrible. People who want to have a firearm should be able to own one, however, not everyone wants to own one and that's completely OK. Gun ownership and training should never be compulsory. Unless of course, you want American to be a de facto military fascist state where you're required to do that sort of thing.

Also, an armed society isn't a polite society. Gun ownership in Utah is incredibly high but judging by the sheer amount of complete and utter 🤬wits here, I'm going to wager owning a gun doesn't always make you a pleasant person.

An armed society IS a polite society, because if EVERYONE is packing, then violent, predatory behavior is too risky to persue, because ANYONE can put a stop to it at ANY time! 🤗

 

[Danoff]

Untrained? Looking for trouble? What a load of bollocks.

Yup. And nothing you post below says otherwise.

Why were residents boarding up windows and writing "children live here" ?

You mean like this?

You think a sign put up in advance is evidence of what exactly?

Have you watching any of the evidence?

Yes.

They were throwing rocks at people defending businesses, Kyle went and signalled to them to calm down.

That must have been his training kicking in.

The guy he shot Rosenbaum went there straight after being released from prison, was shouting shoot me ni$%a, threatened to kill Kyle.

Rittenhouse testified that. Looks like Rosenbaum actually went there straight after being released from a hospital (which is where he got the plastic bag with socks that he threw at Rittenhouse). Rosenbaum was apparently being treated for a suicide attempt and was bipolar.

Then later he chased Kyle and Kyle shot the dirty pardo that raped 5 children.

Rosenbaum had been convicted of sexual contact with a few teenagers in 2002. He was 36 years old when he died, putting him right at about 17 years old when the incident occured. He is survived by a 3 year old and a wife.

Dehumanizing doesn't help. He's not the only person Kyle "kept the peace" against with bullets. Kyle didn't even hit all of the people he tried to shoot either.

Not a single person that didn't attack Kyle got shot, 2 people that attacked and moved away also didn't get shot.

Rosenbaum didn't attack Kyle (at least the evidence doesn't show it). That's one. Having witnessed Kyle just shoot a guy, another guy hit him with a skateboard. That guy ended up shot as well. The next guy, filming the riot, thought Kyle was an active shooter (which he was) and tried to use his own gun to "keep the peace". In that moment, he was basically acting like a better version of Kyle Rittenhouse. That guy got shot as well - because that's what Rittenhouse would do with Rittenhouse.

Some people on this form are so liberal and open minded their brains have fallen out.

What does any of this have to do with being liberal or conservative?

 

[Joey D]

An armed society IS a polite society, because if EVERYONE is packing, then violent, predatory behavior is too risky to persue, because ANYONE can put a stop to it at ANY time! 🤗

That's not what polite means. There are plenty of impolite people who aren't violent or exhibit predatory behavior. What you're advocating for is a society built around the fear that if you do anything out of line, you'll get shot. That's a terrible way to live.

I'm going to guess you've never taken any sort of firearm course. In every course I've taken, it's more about the do's and don't of firearm usage, and pulling a gun on someone because they're rude (the opposite of polite) is not the correct way to use a firearm. A firearm isn't meant to intimidate or invoke fear, it's a tool that's meant to provide self-defense. Using it to invoke fear or to intimidate is called brandishing, and that's illegal in every jurisdiction that I'm aware of, including Arizona (A.R.S. 13-2904).

 

[Scaff]

An armed society IS a polite society, because if EVERYONE is packing, then violent, predatory behavior is too risky to persue, because ANYONE can put a stop to it at ANY time! 🤗

You spelt fear wrong.

As has been said, that's not a polite society, that's one run on the basis of fear.

Nor does your argument hold up, Afghanistan is an armed society, but it certainly isn't safe. Japan is not an armed society and is safe and absurdly polite.

Stop glamouring fear and violence as if its an acceptable way to run a society, it isn't, it's a terrible way to run one.

 

[unit-one]

Looks Kyle could have shot 4 felons that night. Seriously, was there any people without criminal records?

The "Jump kick man" suspect - link
Other three - link
Rosenbaum with a chain in his hand - link

 

[McLaren]

Looks Kyle could have shot 4 felons that night. Seriously, was there any people without criminal records?

The "Jump kick man" suspect - link
Other three - link
Rosenbaum with a chain in his hand - link

If I commit an act of fatal violence against you tomorrow and it comes out you robbed and beat up old ladies (even though I had no knowledge of that), that does not absolve me of my crime.

The public is not judge, jury, & executioner.

An armed society IS a polite society, because if EVERYONE is packing, then violent, predatory behavior is too risky to persue, because ANYONE can put a stop to it at ANY time! 🤗

I have a feeling foreign societies can show an objection to this that have stricter gun laws, reduced gun ownership, and lower crime rate.

 

[Danoff]

Looks Kyle could have shot 4 felons that night. Seriously, was there any people without criminal records?

The "Jump kick man" suspect - link
Other three - link
Rosenbaum with a chain in his hand - link

Rosenbaum had a chain in his hand? Rittenhouse had a semi-automatic rifle in his hand!?! But we know Rosenbaum was the bad guy right? Your article says Grosskreutz is not a felon.

But... regardless...


How friggin appropriate is this argument in the George Floyd thread? They had it coming!!!

Absolutely nothing has been learned.

 

[TexRex]

The next guy, filming the riot, thought Kyle was an active shooter (which he was) and tried to use his own gun to "keep the peace".

How does the line go? "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun"?

What does any of this have to do with being liberal or conservative?

Existential necessity. Those beholden to culture war grievance need someone to play adversary or said grievance has no basis, even irrational. They also need heroes, such as Kyle Rittenhouse, because they're so frequently nothing more than keyboard warriors themselves. Of course, because Kyle Rittenhouse is their hero, they need him to be acquitted...or rather vindicated.

It's insane. And by that I don't mean that it's some remarkable circumstance that warrants a strong descriptor, I mean it's actually insane. It's delusion.

 

[NotThePrez]

Isn't that what's supposed to be judged in court?

Ideally, yes. However, people still have the right to defend "criminals" in public discourse. Making a blanket statement that people need to "stop defending criminals" is an attempt to belittle that right.

IMO people jump to conclusion...

Kinda like how certain people jump to conclusions about George Floyd and his treatment because he has a criminal history?

...and protest.

Which is one of our constitutional rights as Americans. Protesting is the reason why I have the right to vote, why my parents could put me in any school of their choosing, and why several of my friends can now spend the rest of their lives with the person they love.

Or are you doing the typical right-wing habit of conflating "protest" and "riot," in an effort to make protesting look bad?

Riots are starting to look like an excuse to loot...

Some people have used riots as an excuse to commit crimes, which has been called out by quite a bit.

...and to promote political figures.

You do know that the people that you're defending are also guilty of this, right? Nor is the Conservative base free of committing this act.

Peaceful protests are fine as long as they are not breaking the rights of other people,...

Which the majority of protests have accomplished, as has been pointed out by @Scaff, @McLaren, myself, and probably a good few others multiple times in this thread. Unsurprisingly, you've chose to ignore that because it doesn't fit your narrative.

You have right to protest, but riots are making more victims and you don't have right to destroy and steal.

Nobody has said otherwise.

Then there's anti-police propaganda that is deliberately spreading amongst the groups. I don't like that protests are focused on demonizing the police instead of working with people to teach how to properly act during police encounters.

Have you considered the possibility that the "propaganda" that's being created is not totally unfounded? I'm going to guess no.

And again, there have been several cases of people being victims of excessive force despite of fully complying with them. I mentioned two examples.

Both sides should work to respect each other.

That would at minimum require the police and the side that defends police to acknowledge that they're not above scrutiny and should be held to both a higher standard as well as a higher level of accountability, as well as acknowledging the role that they've played in the creation of the current state of anti-police sentiment.

Considering that we're having problems with officers getting pissy about being vaccinated, I'm not exactly holding my breath.

BLM raised 90 million dollars in 2020 alone and I hope that the money won't be spent on propaganda and buying elite houses (Although the BLM co-founder Patrisse Khan-Cullors claimed that she didn't spend the foundation money on 4 houses starting from 2016 to 2020 spending 3.2 million dollars, this makes me wonder how much money she gives to the fund and what the fund is doing with the money. Apparently people still have financial problems.)

Again, BLM The Orginization and BLM the movement are two different things. This is something that has been gone over multiple times in this thread.

You said that I'm "admitting to missing the days where officers could beat the crap out of suspects without question." This is BS you made up. I said "I kinda miss the nightsticks after watching some videos." See the difference? I never said anything about illegal use. When tazer fails the officer is left with his bare hands or a lethal weapon. I did see some of them are using telescoping sticks to brake car windows and on suspects. Those things do cause injuries and should be used according to the situation.

Ok, perhaps I may have overstepped my bounds a bit, so I apologize there. But it still doesn't do much to make you sound good, especially since it still came after complaining about police being too restricted in handling suspects.

Sometimes the suspect manages to take the stick from the officer and gets a bullet in return.

Thank you for providing an example of what I was talking about before, about how police are trained to be scared and go for the nuclear option rather than use other methods to subdue a suspect. I would 100% say that shooting to kill is a good bit excessive in order to fight someone armed with what is effectively a plastic stick. The fact that this is considered acceptable solidifies my belief that there needs to be a good look taken at how police are trained to deal with adverse situations.

I don't support police brutality.

Then why do you choose to victim blame and use excuses like "it happens rarely" in cases of actual police brutality?

96.7% of protests are peaceful (no property damage). Okay, that doesn't mean anything.

Thanks for confirming that you're incapable of discussing this subject objectively and in good faith.

Looks Kyle could have shot 4 felons that night. Seriously, was there any people without criminal records?

The "Jump kick man" suspect - link
Other three - link
Rosenbaum with a chain in his hand - link

And if he had, he still would've killed 3 people. The fact that some of those people have criminal records (one of them doesn't) wouldn't have absolved Rittenhouse of his actions.

It's hilarious that you post that after talking about how peoples guilt should be judged in court. That's some beautiful hypocrisy.

Also pretty certain that @AZpocalypse is a troll, and a remarkably bad one at that.

 

[TexRex]

Louisville police took $18K from Black driver in unlawful search and arrest, lawsuit says

Karim Codrington sued ex-LMPD Chief Steve Conrad and three officers over a 2018 traffic stop in which police charged him with offenses later dropped.

www.courier-journal.com

 

[NotThePrez]

Louisville police took $18K from Black driver in unlawful search and arrest, lawsuit says

Karim Codrington sued ex-LMPD Chief Steve Conrad and three officers over a 2018 traffic stop in which police charged him with offenses later dropped.

www.courier-journal.com

He should've just complied. /sarcasm

 

[ScottPuss20]

Two words

Systemic Racism.

The US justice system is massively biased in many, many ways, particularly if you are black.

Report to the United Nations on Racial Disparities in the U.S. Criminal Justice System – The Sentencing Project

Report to the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Contemporary Forms of Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia, and Related Intolerance

www.sentencingproject.org

We've known about this for years but nothing has been done to stop it.

One thing I don't understand is how anyone can condemn the actions of Rittenhouse when he had no reason to get involved in the first place. We don't need vigilantes taking things into their own hands because it only compounds the issue. Rittenhouse can make all the excuses he likes to justify his actions but he wasn't forced to bare arms, he wasn't forced to patrol the streets and he wasn't forced to travel outside his home state. He made a stupid, needless choice that ultimately resulted in the deaths of 4 people. If Rittenhouse stayed home, this whole thing could've been avoided. How anyone can have sympathy for this guy I'll never know because he was soo obviously in the wrong. Saying that he was forced to take to the streets with a gun to combat these left-wing "idiots" who will supposedly indoctrinate and take away your "freedom" is rubbish. It was an act of cowardice, not bravery.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

At least one person here (@Chrunch Houston) indicated that there was no evidence but a blurry picture, so I don't know how you could have concluded that all of the above is what happened from a blurry picture.

Don't lie about what I say.

What I said:

So it turns out that in Wisconsin a person can open carry a rifle if they are 16 or older. So that charge was dropped.

The only thing the prosecution has is a chunk of pixels, blown up, from a screenshot of a drone video. I don't see anything, even the judge didn't see anything, they say it shows Kyle pointing his gun at someone.

The defense has shown tons of evidence, all supporting Kyle's story.

 

[Danoff]

Don't lie about what I say.

Whew, you missed that point at least twice.

The defense has shown tons of evidence, all supporting Kyle's story.

The prosecution has more than blurry photos. I'm not lying, I'm being sarcastic about your lie.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

The prosecution has more than blurry photos.

What evidence?

 

[Danoff]

What evidence?

I don't even have to leave Kyle's own admitted testimony to find evidence in support of the prosecution. He admitted that he knew Rosenbaum was unarmed. That's enough, all by itself, without taking into account anything else, like anyone else's testimony, to show that your absolutely farcical statement that the prosecution had nothing but blurry photos was plainly wrong. Most of what the defense is using can also be used by the prosecution.

It's worth noting here that the prosecution also had a video of Kyle talking about people he'd like to go shoot with his AR, which was not admissible because... well... you'd have to ask the judge on that one.

It's so easily disproven, that I did not take it seriously the first time, or the second time I posted about it. Your absurd post even suggests that it's not proven that Kyle even pointed his gun at someone. I suppose you think he didn't even shoot them since it can't be established that he pointed his gun at anyone (the fact that it's established that he shot them, and admitted it, is also evidence for the prosecution btw).

The fact that you're back here asking this question is astounding to me. I was absolutely certain that you were spouting hyperbole. It didn't cross my mind that you actually believed such an obviously incorrect statement.

 

[Liquid]

It's worth noting here that the prosecution also had a video of Kyle talking about people he'd like to go shoot with his AR, which was not admissible because... well... you'd have to ask the judge on that one.

What was the given reason? This seems like an astonishing exhibit of evidence to omit and not consider.

 

[Scaff]

Looks Kyle could have shot 4 felons that night. Seriously, was there any people without criminal records?

The "Jump kick man" suspect - link
Other three - link
Rosenbaum with a chain in his hand - link

This is exactly why people don't believe you when you claim to not support police brutality.

You have consistently and repeatedly posted, with great conviction, your support for extra-judicial violence.

As such you can claim (with nothing like the same conviction) to not support police brutality, but when the rest of your posts quite clearly support the use of extra-judicial violence and support violence towards people based on past (and punished) actions, then your claims carry no weight at all.

 

[Blitz24]

What was the given reason? This seems like an astonishing exhibit of evidence to omit and not consider.

Only reason I could think of is that the judge decided he was speaking hypothetically and it was irrelevant to the case (which could be argued, but would take a ton of mental gymnastics, or plain bias, to reach that conclusion).

 

[Sprite]

But he was armed. And if he wasn't as well trained as he is, there'd be more Mostly Peaceful™ casualties, no doubt. I don't know what the big deal is. He was in danger, he defended himself and people have a PROBLEM with this? Are Mostly Peaceful Protests™ only supposed to be Mostly Peaceful™ to the victims? I say give him a statue and lifetime box seats to his favorite sporting events and encourage
more people to defend themselves and their property from mindless Mostly Peaceful™ mobs! 🤗

You also don't seem to be getting this either. Its super simple really.

I understand he worked in the area, I understand he had family in the area, I understand he's allowed a gun and to openly carry said weapon. That I have no issue with.

I also understand he feared for his safety.

What is wrong with all that Rittenhouse did...?

He shouldn't have been there. It's not really hard to understand.

He had a choice to make

1. Riots in the area where I work and my family lives. I'll get an automatic rifle, designed for killing people and I'll head to where these riots are and put myself in harms way. If I then get into bother with someone I'll just shoot them.

2. Riots in the area where I work and my family lives. I'll get an automatic rifle, designed for killing people but I'll stay with my family and keep them safe and their property safe.

3. Riots in the area where I work and my family lives. I'll leave work and the area and stay home. I may even ask my family if they wish to come over to mine to stay safe.

Basically there is only one reason to choose option one, that's so he could kill people in the name of keeping the peace. If he chose option one he knew people rioting were dangerous, he knew openly carrying would possibly make him a target of others who wanted to be confrontational. He knew at some point he would have to pull the trigger. What is really sad is, he took lives so easily and people are defending his actions.

Also quoting someone and then overtypeing your own rubbish into the quote & effectively putting words in my mouth isn't a great show. To be honest its a little offensive and doing so really speaks volumes of your intentions.

 

[unit-one]

This is exactly why people don't believe you when you claim to not support police brutality.

You have consistently and repeatedly posted, with great conviction, your support for extra-judicial violence.

As such you can claim (with nothing like the same conviction) to not support police brutality, but when the rest of your posts quite clearly support the use of extra-judicial violence and support violence towards people based on past (and punished) actions, then your claims carry no weight at all.

Provocation. False accusation. Misinterpretation.
I don't support police brutality, but you are constantly making me look like I do, and you support people against me. If I read statistics and the history of people involved, analyzing the situation, trying to learn and understand, does that make me a supporter of extra-judicial violence and police brutality? By your logic, yes.
I don't close my eyes on one of the sides of conflict to blindly follow the narrative that you like. You just can't support a civil discussion without calling me what I'm not. You literally placed a tag on me. This is just hostile.
I've been called a bootlicker, a pro-fascist and a liar in this thread and apparently the offensive and provocative behavior of you and some other people you support is acceptable.
You've been reported and you know that.
Others are placed to the ignore list. I don't want to talk to people that don't have respect for others opinion.

 

[pokemonfan58]

You've been reported and you know that.

And this my friends is how careers are ended.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t entirely agree with some of Scaff’s takes here but I certainly wouldn’t resort to name calling or reporting someone for having a different opinion than me especially when dealing with a mod.

 

[unit-one]

And this my friends is how careers are ended.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t entirely agree with some of Scaff’s takes here but I certainly wouldn’t resort to name calling or reporting someone for having a different opinion than me especially when dealing with a mod.

If Scaff truly supports his views on law-enforcement then he should act like one, since he is the website law enforcer. He shouldn't be immune to reports and he should not provoke or offend people. I'm not reporting him for having a different opinion, I'm reporting him for his actions that mark people with unwanted opinions as enemies. In short- I'm generally ok with his views, but I'm NOT OK when he calls me a police brutality supporter. That's the issue.

 

[pokemonfan58]

If Scaff truly supports his views on law-enforcement then he should act like one, since he is the website law enforcer. He shouldn't be immune to reports and he should not provoke or offend people. I'm not reporting him for having a different opinion, I'm reporting him for his actions that mark unwanted people as enemies. In short- I'm generally ok with his views, but I'm NOT OK when he calls me a police brutality supporter. That's the issue.

A moderator on a website and a police officer are two different things. Just because you’re a mod who works on a website doesn’t make you someone who’s qualified to be a police officer. Those require different types of training.

There are people in the BLM crowd who have caused violent riots there’s no denying that but at the same time, there were leaders in the BLM organization who were trying to call out the violence and I 100% support that and these people deserve their voices to be heard which I notice was something you failed to point out and only the people you were arguing against did.

 

[Danoff]

Provocation. False accusation. Misinterpretation.

I see none of that in Scaff's post. I seem him calmly explaining to you why people think you're insincere about not supporting police brutality. I feel the same way based on that post, and I compared it to the George Floyd situation very much on purpose.

I don't support police brutality, but you are constantly making me look like I do

I think the post scaff quoted does a nice job of that all by itself.

What was the given reason? This seems like an astonishing exhibit of evidence to omit and not consider.

That the situation couldn't reasonably be compared to Kenosha. Which is plainly wrong.

 

[unit-one]

A moderator on a website and a police officer are two different things. Just because you’re a mod who works on a website doesn’t make you someone who’s qualified to be a police officer. Those require different types of training.

There are people in the BLM crowd who have caused violent riots there’s no denying that but at the same time, there were leaders in the BLM organization who were trying to call out the violence and I 100% support that and these people deserve their voices to be heard which I notice was something you failed to point out and only the people you were arguing against did.

Apparently he knows better how the police should act. Of course he doesn't have police training.
I have already said that you have the right to protest.

 

[Scaff]

Provocation. False accusation. Misinterpretation.

You have spelt opinion incorrectly (three times)

I don't support police brutality, but you are constantly making me look like I do, and you support people against me.

No, you've done that all by yourself.

If I read statistics and the history of people involved, analyzing the situation, trying to learn and understand, does that make me a supporter of extra-judicial violence and police brutality? By your logic, yes.

That's not what you have done though is it. You've barely posted a statistic or source, rather you have relied on hyperbole and repeatedly used peoples pasts to justify violence against them.

I don't close my eyes on one of the sides of conflict to blindly follow the narrative that you like. You just can't support a civil discussion without calling me what I'm not. You literally placed a tag on me. This is just hostile.

I suspect your offended by it because it cuts a little closer to reality that you want to admit.

I've been called a bootlicker, a pro-fascist and a liar in this thread and apparently the offensive and provocative behavior of you and some other people you support is acceptable.

I've called you none of those things, so the strawmen are not needed.

You've been reported and you know that.

I have no issue with that at all, as I know I haven't broke the AUP.

Others are placed to the ignore list. I don't want to talk to people that don't have respect for others opinion.

Why do you opinions and posts demand automatic respect?

I will be blunt I have zero respect for opinions that attempt to justify extra-judicial violence in any way at all.

Apparently he knows better how the police should act. Of course he doesn't have police training.
I have already said that you have the right to protest.

Another strawman argument.

You don't need police training to know that abusing and murdering the people you are supposed to be protecting (and yes that does include those with past criminal convictions and those committing crimes or suspected of committing crimes) is an extra-judicial abuse of power, immoral and illegal.

Rules of engagement for the police should be proportionate, clear, transparent and these should be enforced rigorously. The police shouldn't not be able to hide abuses behind a blue wall, behind threats to fellow officers, and should not be allowed to hide behind qualified immunity.

You don't need police training to know this.

 

[unit-one]

I've called you none of those things, so the strawmen are not needed.

You called me dishonest and say that I'm lying about what I support and other people called me a bootlicker and a pro-fascist. You ether forgot or deliberately provoking again!

I have no issue with that at all, as I know I haven't broke the AUP.

"You will not behave in an abusive and/or hateful manner"
That's what you think. Your actions offended me and you don't even realize that.

Why do you opinions and posts demand automatic respect?

I will be blunt I have zero respect for opinions that attempt to justify extra-judicial violence in any way at all.

Why couldn't you have a civil discussion instead of accusing? You are intolerant.

 

[Scaff]

You called me dishonest and say that I'm lying about what I support and other people called me a bootlicker and a pro-fascist. You ether forgot or deliberately provoking again!

I'm saying that a significant difference exists between the way in which you post and the claim to not support police brutality. That others also see this disconnect simply re-enforces it.

"You will not behave in an abusive and/or hateful manner"
That's what you think. Your actions offended me and you don't even realize that.

I've not been abusive towards you, nor hateful. That you have taken offence to my view of your posts and how they present you has noting to do with that, and is an issue you need to deal with not me.

Why couldn't you have a civil discussion instead of accusing?

I have been civil, I've simply pointed out the large disconnect between how you post (supporting extra-judicial actions by the police and others) and you claim to not support police brutality.

It's also a strawman to suggest that a civil discussion can't happening if logical discrepancies in a position are pointed out.

You are intolerant.

I am absolutely intolerant of intolerance!

Paradox of Tolerance: To Tolerate or Not to Tolerate?

One of the cornerstones of American democracy is the First Amendment right to freedom of speech, the principle that any individual can voice their ideas and opinions without the threat of censorship…

academy4sc.org