Glorifying acts of violence is something we will not condone or allow here. There is a difference between arguing whether actions of a particular party were justified, and saying that you're happy someone made a decision that ended two lives and ruined countless more.

As far as we can tell, neither of the victims had committed any heinous acts that would justify delighting in their death. You of course are free to disagree with their actions. You may find them reckless, inappropriate, or stupid. However, to be happy about this outcome is frankly disgusting. Two people are dead and a young man, who perhaps you feel was misguided, faces life in prison. This is a tragedy. Regardless of which side you think is right or wrong, we should all hope for peaceful solutions. If you think one side is to blame, you should hope for them to come to a more reasonable position, not for their death.

We will not platform hate speech. Perhaps there are fringe examples (for example it would probably be acceptable to be happy that Pol Pot is no longer of this world), but except in these most extreme cases, comments expressing the desire for the death of person or group will be met with bans, likely long ones, and potentially bans from political discussions altogether. Likewise, incitements to take violent actions, veiled or otherwise, and attempts to dehumanize a group (an important first step in a campaign of violence) will also not be tolerated.

The thing that bugs me about this is that my aggressive stance against a handful of bad arguments that keep getting regurgitated on this forum was because I knew it was all leading here. This is why I read between the lines and pick up on patters and try to preempt shit like this, because it's where it always ends up. but no, people keep telling me I'm being too nasty or being too harsh or reading too deep into it. 

You know how they say 'an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure'? It's kinda like that. I wanted (And still want to) cut off a lot of these abhorrent beliefs before they inevitably turn into some variation of 'they deserved it', or the lovely argument I got into over on reddit where someone said 'black people are just more prone to crime, that's why they are killed by the cops'. I get ahead of the argument because that's basically where all of these points lead, even if the person who is making the point doesn't feel that way. 

When you're wrong (Not you in particular, the people I'm referring to know who they are), the only way to gain any traction is to stand your ground and double down on your bad logic. That's why we end up with arguments here that aren't about 'hey, we should find a way to fix the fact that cops use lethal force way too often and statistically it happens more often to black people' like they should be, but are instead bending over backwards to justify the murders that happen. I've been loudly and repeatedly trying to cut these terrible arguments off at the pass before they devolved into this and just got told I was flaming and I kept getting banned for it.

What do you mean, where is my proof? Didn't you watch the videos? Didn't you deduce from what your eyes see and your ears hear? Do you have an answer to why three police officers backed away from Blake who appeared to be on the ground and in the next moment they going for their weapons. Then let me hear it.

Yes, Rittenhouse has been charged, this is old news. But he hasn't been found guilty. Don't you know the difference?

Blake has been murdered by the state without a trial and you seem to have no issue with that, but someone says that a white boy who killed several people has been rightfully charged with murder and you jump to his defense. Why does "innocent until proven guilty" seem to apply whenever we are talking about white guys who are killing people, but not to black guys who are killed?

You can PM us if you have any particular issues with moderation, as these conversations tend to derail threads. 

That is not an answer to any question i posed or in any way productive. All you do is making emotional noise, no interest in fact and truth.

Are you going to call me a coon next?

"If" he's a criminal!? xD

1. Never said otherwise.

2. I even pointed out how the cops failed to prevent escalation in this instance.

3. What are you trying to say here, that the timing of the riots are just pure coincidence and are totally not in support of criminals? Bruh they have George's face on t-shirts. Even when believing that, it's still stupid to destroy random private businesses that have nothing to do with those who wronged you and have only to do with the people you're supposedly in support of.

The main point I'm making is criminals aren't naive children who just don't know better and can't help themselves, they share in the blame for these incidents, yet the riots would have you believe only one side is truely responsible. 

To say the protests are "in support of criminals" is an incredibly poor and misleading way to phrase it.

For example, I support a rapist's right to a fair trial. To say based on this that I support rapists would be incredibly misleading.

Similarly, if someone supports George Floyd's right not to have a knee on his neck for 8 minutes, it is misleading to say that they support criminals. Supporting the fair treatment of criminals and suspected criminals would be more accurate. 

The criminal's share of the blame ends where excessive force begins. That's simply by definition. If someone has legitimately committed a crime, it is their fault if they get arrested. If they were not posing a threat and are shot or killed, that part is 100% on the the police.

Let's talk about the wealth gap. How come rich become richer and poor stay same. This is a rig system only benefiting the rich. The fed dumps billions if not trillions in junk bonds to support the stock market and everybody is fighting among themselves while they keep getting richer. They are playing you like they played so many before you. The rich love watching the poor fight among themselves.

Half the people here aren't even from the USA. I'm sure you offered brilliant ideas to solve my nations problems but the fact is you aren't from here. Fact is few of you haven't any good ideas and if you think someone from my country will listen to you or change anything is a sad story. The fact is here in USA the rich get richer and the poor stay the same.  That's capitalism at the heart.

My question is why would anyone vote Republican unless they are rich. They used social issues like abortion and protests to divide us. Republicans are the only one standing in way of minimum wage increase. We should have made min wage tied to inflation because honestly the dollar isn't worth shit now. Least some states and cities jumped in and offered increase. Pretty soon you will see the poor grab pitch forks or whatever they can to actually form a living. There will be a reckoning and march on wall street was only the beginning.