Mississippi Church Member Charged in 'Vote Trump' Arson
42 replies, posted
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;51572606]God, I'm actually going to have to lookup the name of this fallacy. Might be "[URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_silence"]Argument from silence[/URL]" but I don't know.
Just because I haven't commented on something, doesn't mean that I don't have a problem with it.[/QUOTE]
No but it does look bad when the only time you do bring it up is to shit on someone who's opinion you disagree with.
It looks even worse when, in fact, he WAS contributing to the discussion; he said things didn't feel right to him, and he explained why. Opposing viewpoints -- equally valid ones since no one knew the full story -- foster discussion. He should have been less of a target as far as not contributing goes.
You just disagreed with him.
[QUOTE=Mattk50;51572648]Ah yes, so based on your unfounded suspicion that the poster you responded to had an ulterior motive to sow the seeds of conspiracy you have deduced that he backpedalled and intentionally decided to write a reasonable post before he even posted in the thread! Masterful, im glad you were around to right this wrong on the facepunch forums. [/quote]
Jesus Christ dude, get real. Clearly you haven't read any of my posts in that thread because you're creating this pretend persona of me that will help you strawman easier.
My post in the thread:
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;51305127]You're not a conspiracy theorist. You made a conspiracy theory and I called you out on it. It's like making a racist remark without being aware of the remark you're making, you made a racist statement but you yourself are not racist.[/QUOTE]
Are you still going to keep up with your imagination of me thinking he's a conspiracy theorist?
[QUOTE=Mattk50;51572648]Speculation is fine based on whatever the poster in question thinks is significant. The poster thought the circumstances felt fishy and unnatural, he turned out to be right. The optimist that i am says that often people have such feelings based on real oddities yet aren't great at articulating them in extreme detail, and so they remain valid. Your opinion of sanity is once someone does one insane thing, all of their other actions become insane as well. Personally i disagree and think most insane people show more sanity than they do insanity, the insanity are the knots in an otherwise healthy mind. For example, the person who was insane enough to burn down their own church but sane enough to write "vote trump" on the wall to trick the media into reporting on it in an anti-trump context.[/quote]
Are we looking at a different quote?
[QUOTE=SenhorCreeper;51298541]This smells fishy and really un-natural, I doubt anyone sane would burn a church down and write "vote for trump pls" on the wall, who would even do something like that, it's not normal human behavior at all.[/QUOTE]
He's arguing whether or not the assailant is sane enough to write "vote trump" before/after he set a church on fire.
[QUOTE=Mattk50;51572648]You're correct that it doesn't mean your fine with it; that wasn't my implication. I do think it's relevant to establish existing biases though, instead of going after the mayor for making an assumption your preference was to go after a speculating poster and accuse them of secretly inciting conspiracy theories in collaboration with "people like [him]". Which, to my great amusement, makes you by literal definition a conspiracy theorist.[/QUOTE]
Alright let's look at what the article said.
[quote]Greenville Mayor Errick Simmons described it as a "hateful and cowardly act" and "a direct assault on people's right to freely worship".
Mayor Simmons said: "We consider it a hate crime because of the political message which we believe was intended to interfere with worship and intimidate voters.
"It happened in the '50s, it happened in the '60s. It shouldn't happen in 2016."[/quote]
[url]http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37842977[/url]
Pretty different wording than your narrative of "mayor assuming it was a white supremacist."
Honestly if you're really going to rail on me for not bitching about a mayor I don't care about saying political driven, then I don't know what to say.
[editline]23rd December 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=BelatedGamer;51572690]No but it does look bad when the only time you do bring it up is to shit on someone who's opinion you disagree with.
It looks even worse when, in fact, he WAS contributing to the discussion; he said things didn't feel right to him, and he explained why. Opposing viewpoints -- equally valid ones since no one knew the full story -- foster discussion. He should have been less of a target as far as not contributing goes.
You just disagreed with him.[/QUOTE]
So do you honestly expect me to directly address 8 or 9 different people who all have the same point, when instead I could address 1 person who just has that same point?
I argue points, not people.
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;51572711]Jesus Christ dude, get real. Clearly you haven't read any of my posts in that thread because you're creating this pretend persona of me that will help you strawman easier.
My post in the thread:
Are you still going to keep up with your imagination of me thinking he's a conspiracy theorist?[/quote]
"you're not a computer user, you're a person who uses a computer"
If you accuse someone of promoting conspiracy theories while simultaneously giving him a spiel about how all the "people like him" do the same thing, you're calling him a conspiracy theorist. If you went back through my posts and just replaced all my mentions of "conspiracy theorist" with "person who forms/pushes conspiracy theories" my meaning would be the same. Im not really up for any more low tier semantic arguments, they're ridiculously uninteresting so do me a favor and raise the level of discourse a little bit would you. If you want to change your opinion it's not a big deal, as i see it that later post you made was a big backpedal attempt.
You keep defending the arguments you keep saying are straw mans so whatever dude, you can keep shouting about that all day and your points dont change.
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;51572711]Are we looking at a different quote?
He's arguing whether or not the assailant is sane enough to write "vote trump" before/after he set a church on fire.[/QUOTE]
My point was that sanity often comes with insanity. The fact that the person wasn't caught immediately after means he wasn't some drunk idiot passed out on the scene or wandering through the streets yelling about his deeds. For a partially sane person to burn a church down then want to give his own candidate bad press is weird. Its not impossible, but the poster thought it was weird and that's a completely fair point to make. The point is that he made a valid speculation and you were declaring it harmful, somehow.
You know, it's a common thing for some to go around using vague negative terms without real justifications, things like "problematic" and "harmful". You justified calling this harmful with "Because you're helping push the narrative that it could be the other side's fault." It to me like an attempt at collective guilt. He's not allowed to speculate because some other people had similar but harsher opinions. I think collective guilt is harmful, it tends to drive discussion down to a low level of discourse and helps people justify collective actions and abuse. It also tends to push people in a national discussion (see trump voters) away from your ideas. In the future i suggest you avoid collective guilt if you want your posts to avoid being harmful.
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;51572711]
Alright let's look at what the article said.
[url]http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37842977[/url]
Pretty different wording than your narrative of "mayor assuming it was a white supremacist."
Honestly if you're really going to rail on me for not bitching about a mayor I don't care about saying political driven, then I don't know what to say.[/QUOTE]
The mayor pretty clearly states he thinks its a hate crime, and intended to intimidate voters. The only way i can interpret "intimidate voters" with "hate crime" is that it's a racist who doesn't want a black church voting, by definition white supremacist. (The truth didn't turn out to be voter intimidation, it was false flag, more like libel.)
[QUOTE=Mattk50;51572804]"you're not a computer user, you're a person who uses a computer"[/quote]
Literally not even what I'm saying. What the fuck, dude?. You would have a point if I said "You're not a conspiracy theorist, you're a person who theorizes conspiracy theories."
No, I said that he isn't a conspiracy theorist, but a guy who accidently spewed one without malicious intent.
[QUOTE=Mattk50;51572804]If you accuse someone of promoting conspiracy theories while simultaneously giving him a spiel about how all the "people like him" do the same thing, you're calling him a conspiracy theorist. If you went back through my posts and just replaced all my mentions of "conspiracy theorist" with "person who forms/pushes conspiracy theories" my meaning would be the same. Im not really up for any more low tier semantic arguments, they're ridiculously uninteresting so do me a favor and raise the level of discourse a little bit would you. [/quote]
See above. I was referring to the type of people who post "thought provocative" shit like "What if pizzagate was a real thing?" or "What if 9/11 was an inside job?"
Again, you assume my thoughts.
[QUOTE=Mattk50;51572804]My point was that sanity often comes with insanity. The fact that the person wasn't caught immediately after means he wasn't some drunk idiot passed out on the scene or wandering through the streets yelling about his deeds. For a partially sane person to burn a church down then want to give his own canidate bad press is weird. Its not impossible, but the poster thought it was weird and that's a completely fair point to make. The point is that he made a valid speculation and you were declaring it harmful, somehow.[/quote]
"sanity often comes with insanity" what?????
[QUOTE=Mattk50;51572804]You know, it's a common thing for some to go around using vague negative terms without real justifications, things like "problematic" and "harmful". You justified calling this harmful with "Because you're helping push the narrative that it could be the other side's fault." It to me like an attempt at collective guilt. He's not allowed to speculate because some other people had similar but harsher opinions. I think collective guilt is harmful, it tends to drive discussion down to a low level of discourse and helps people justify collective actions and abuse. It also tends to push people in a national discussion (see trump voters) away from your ideas. In the future i suggest you avoid collective guilt if you want your posts to avoid being harmful.[/quote]
I think you're ignoring his whole thing about sanity, but I think I'm not going to convince you that's a problem because you believe in this "sanity often comes with insanity" shit.
[QUOTE=Mattk50;51572804]The mayor pretty clearly states he thinks its a hate crime, and intended to intimidate voters. The only way i can interpret "intimidate voters" with "hate crime" is that it's a racist who doesnt want a black church voting, by definition white supremacist. (The truth didn't turn out to be voter intimidation, it was false flag, more like libel.)[/QUOTE]
Again, if you're seriously going to give me flak for not shitting on a mayor I clearly don't care about, then I have nothing to say to you. I can turn around your flawed logic and ask you why you didn't bitch at the mayor like I should've done. [I]Clearly[/I] you're no worse than me.
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;51572839]Literally not even what I'm saying. What the fuck, dude?. You would have a point if I said "You're not a conspiracy theorist, you're a person who theorizes conspiracy theories."
No, I said that he isn't a conspiracy theorist, but a guy who accidently spewed one without malicious intent.
See above. I was referring to the type of people who post "thought provocative" shit like "What if pizzagate was a real thing?" or "What if 9/11 was an inside job?"[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;51298684]"Crazy people on both sides"
ugh could you make your intentions any more obvious
This isn't about how you view the left or how you view the right. This is about people like you making conspiracy theories based on assumptions or phony evidence.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;51572839]
"sanity often comes with insanity" what?????
I think you're ignoring his whole thing about sanity, but I think I'm not going to convince you that's a problem because you believe in this "sanity often comes with insanity" shit.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Mattk50;51572648]Your opinion of sanity is once someone does one insane thing, all of their other actions become insane as well. Personally i disagree and think most insane people show more sanity than they do insanity, the insanity are the knots in an otherwise healthy mind. For example, the person who was insane enough to burn down their own church but sane enough to write "vote trump" on the wall to trick the media into reporting on it in an anti-trump context. [/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;51572839]Again, if you're seriously going to give me flak for not shitting on a mayor I clearly don't care about, then I have nothing to say to you. I can turn around your flawed logic and ask you why you didn't bitch at the mayor like I should've done. [I]Clearly[/I] you're no worse than me.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Mattk50;51572648]You're correct that it doesn't mean your fine with it; that wasn't my implication. I do think it's relevant to establish existing biases though, instead of going after the mayor for making an assumption your preference was to go after a speculating poster and accuse them of secretly inciting conspiracy theories in collaboration with "people like [him]". Which, to my great amusement, makes you by literal definition a conspiracy theorist.[/QUOTE]
For someone so insistent nobody but you reads your posts you could have at least remembered the line our discussion was following more than 1 reply back. If you plan to just go what???? taking one line out of context after ignoring the reasoning there's really nothing for me to do but point you back to it.
If you begin to assert that the mayor was never wrong i'm going to point out where he was, and then when you start about me giving you flak for not shitting on him im just going to quote the part where i said "You're correct that it doesn't mean your fine with it; that wasn't my implication."
i think this is as far as this one is going to get.
[QUOTE=Mattk50;51572876]i think this is as far as this one is going to get.[/QUOTE]
I think you and I both damn well know that this argument wasn't going to go anywhere.
You persist that this imaginary, probably less sexier version of ROFLBURGER exists when I've proved countless times that this isn't the case, and yet you try to push this narrative. You think that I believe that anyone who disagrees with me = conspiracy theorist when I've been very clear what my intentions are, but you ignore that anyways because what is honesty in debating anymore, right?
Your argument is entirely based on what you interpret from my posts (as well as the lack thereof), and not what I've actually said. I can't argue with what you interpret especially when you deny what I meant, even though denial of what I said does not help you win whatever the hell we were arguing.
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;51565449]No one was attacked lol. People were called out for saying stupid shit. People said "OMG FALSE FLAG" without a shred of evidence that it was a false flag operation. It was all speculation.[/QUOTE]
We were arguing about this load of bollocks. People did get attacked, by you and others, for discussing the possibility of a false flag in a way that certainly could not be described as "OMG FALSE FLAG".
Forgive me for my interpretation of your bad posts not being sexy as they are inside your head. What could be better than the right honorable roflburger quashing the ignorant "OMG FALSE FLAG" masses.
[quote]Andrew McClinton, 45[/quote]
There's a joke here somewhere but instead, I'll just leave this.
[img]http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/simpsons/images/5/5e/Snrub.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20140416021517[/img]
[QUOTE=Numpers;51564478]A guy burns down his own church, and spray paints "Vote Trump" and it isn't politically motivated? Is this a joke? This is literally a textbook false-flag.[/QUOTE]
False flag also implies political motivation, however. In order for this to be a false flag, under the generally understood meaning of the term, the motivation for the arson would have had to be political in nature. IE- he chose to burn the church down and spraypaint "Vote Trump" [i]because he wanted to discredit Trump voters.[/i]
According to the article, that is not what happened here. It sounds like guy burned the church down for some bizarre personal reasons, then panicked and tried come up with a plausible explanation for the arson that pointed the blame away from himself. Assuming the article is correct about the results of the investigation: he didn't do this to discredit Trump voters, he did this to throw the investigation off his tracks. Thus, not a false flag, and [I]definitely[/I] not a conspiracy.
[QUOTE=DOCTOR LIGHT;51565045]Bury your head in the sand. Your folly will be your downfall when they turn their swords on you too.
[editline]22nd December 2016[/editline]
[b]Even if I die in an era of hatred and injustice, I'll sleep soundly[/b] knowing that people like you will choke on your words when you too are suffering under the boot of oppression.
[editline]22nd December 2016[/editline]
The fist of hate chokes all throats, my friends. None will be spared when they have their way. You think they're just going to target people you don't like, when it's so much more profitable and enjoyable to dig the heel into everyone? You think that despots and demagogues of the past only ever picked on The Degenerate? You think the terror-wracked communities in Bogota and Sao Paolo are only ever ransacked for the deserving and the forsaken? Think again. Suffering will come for you too.
The fist of hate chokes all throats.[/QUOTE]
Would be funny if I didn't think you were some deranged nut that dreams of people getting hurt.
[QUOTE=Chonch;51565421]Does anyone else remember the other thread about this where users were attacked for assuming this was a false flag? I remember it--maybe incorrectly, but I remember it.
Resisting hate or surviving violence generates attention and sympathy. The problem here is that the demand for sympathy massively outstrips the supply of hate.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Mattk50;51572279]No, people suggested the possibility without automatically assuming it was, and then a bunch of people jumped down their throats for daring to not be convinced one way or the other. That includes you, mr. "I'm calling you out because your assumption is harmful." You wouldn't stop pestering posters for suggesting the possibility that it was a false flag, because even the suggestion was harmful in your eyes. And now you're pretending it was something it wasn't. Get over yourself, you were wrong then and you're still wrong now.[/QUOTE]
Hi there. I'm the first guy straight suggest false flag in the thread and proof positive that taking that stance did not cause one to be attacked. Stop waving the victim flag, it's both ridiculous and hypocritical in the context of this thread.
[QUOTE=Tudd;51574367]Would be funny if I didn't think you were some deranged nut that dreams of people getting hurt.[/QUOTE]
Your comment would make sense had you not voted in a man who [B]will[/B] hurt people, severely, through his denial of climate change alone.
[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;51577589]Your comment would make sense had you not voted in a man who [B]will[/B] hurt people, severely, through his denial of climate change alone.[/QUOTE]
Oh calm down. I can find an article that says the environment is fucked at this point anyways and the USA isn't a monolith in this issue if it makes you feel better. And if we get on a new fleet of Nuclear Power plants, Trump would have ironically helped the environment far better in the long run than all the heavily subsidized wind/solar businesses out of silicon valley put together.
Your friend who you are trying to defend on the other hand sounds like one of those dweebs that writes kill lists on school computers and saves it for later.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.