Sure sounds like one of those astroturf Trump supporters.
It has happened (at least once) again:
Do you expect someone pulling a gun on a store clerk for enforcing rules due to coronavirus to actually engage in a debate or even rant about government policy on this and they are threatening the clerk explicitly to make the government change the law?
Really? :rolleyes:
No way the mayor made the right call. Masks are for the protection of others, as in the store employees who keep the store open and keep the drooling mask deniers fed. The mayor fucked up. The mayor let politics decide the health response; the mayor fucked up.
Well, “is water wet” had run its course. But invoke “TDS” some more, that’ll certainly establish your credibility on the topic.
So where is the debate?
Sure, if the person’s purpose was to call attention to the mask law, I would expect them to make it known.
But is your position that because the gunman said nothing, then he must be a terrorist and a Trump supporter? And even if he was a Trump supporter, that does not justify the thread title that his actions were Trumpist…unless I missed a press conference where Trump told people to violently react when told to wear masks.
This is sure as shit TDS.
Some of us are debating whether the mayor fucked up by capitulating to the droolers. Have you a position on that?
I put it in twice. No idea what happened. Hit Twitter and search on Stillwater. Tons of video is there.
Apologies to all for my SD tech incompetence.
Where’s that dang forest, anyway?
Without more information there is no way to know for sure.
That said, if I were a betting man (MODS…I am NOT offering a bet), I’d bet dollars to dimes he was a Trump supporter and Trump and the cult of personality that has arisen absolutely contributed to these people’s actions.
The Mayor erred on the side of caution in the sense of “people threatening armed violence is something more imminent than a health hazard” and of “this is not a hill I will command common workers to literally die on”. However, erring it was all the same. Lawful civil authorities cannot, MUST NOT send the message that random threats of armed violence will cause a merely inconvenient public safety measure to be withdrawn. Furthermore, “no mask, no service” is not a threat to life or safety that it is legitimate to respond to with deadly force; threatening armed violence over it is wholly antisocial conduct that must not be pandered to and should be discouraged. “Because I am armed, I can do whatever the bloody hell I want and nobody can tell me how to behave, even in someone else’s property” is wrong and must be treated so.
“Hitting Twitter” is SO not going to happen.
The SDMB is, or at least should be, better than that.
Sigh. The president can directly advocate for fighting against the state and local governments for reasonable precautions like wearing masks, painting them as tyrants, but, if someone actually treats them like tyrants, it’s not even partially the president’s fault.
It’s the basic smoke/fire principle here. Is it possible that maybe all of these people who support the violence Trump has supported and push Trump’s positions are not Trump supporters, but came to this belief without his influence? Yes, but it is highly unlikely. It would only make rational sense to assume the vastly less likely case if you had evidence to the contrary.
At least with the girl not wearing a mask whose family killed a security guard, you can at least cite that the people involved are black, and that black people are less likely to be Trump supporters. But here you have literally nothing to go on. You have no evidence to support your position to vary from the null hypothesis which is that which is most likely is probably true.
That you feel the need to call us deranged only shows that you know how weak your argument is. You feel you need to punch it up with insults.
I keep seeing the thread title and wondering about those interesting caves in Stillwater OK.
My goodness. I have been taken to task for failing to competently cite a reference, for citing a reference that is beneath the dignity of Straight Dopers, and for the unwarranted use of colloquialisms. Then there is the matter of someone being deranged. Quite a fun crowd.
My question might be better put, and then left to stand on its own. I wonder if a person who violates public health ordinances and threatens those following them with a firearm is a terrorist? The unstated assumption is that presumed terrorist is operating in accordance with the expressed wishes of a political hack who has solicited his followers to behave in that way.
For anyone who cares, here’s a link:
A terrorist is one who acts to induce fear (terror) in a targeted group. When a political leader provokes fear by word or deed; when an individual or mob acts to provoke fear in others; then they are terrorists. Incitement to riot or insurrection is terrorism. And if the terrorists are Americans waging war on the nation, they are traitors by constitutional definition (USC Art.III Sec.3). This POTUS is a terrorist and traitor.* Armed anti-government insurrectionists are terrorists and traitors. And the Justice Dept won’t do diddly-shit because the AG is also a terrorist and traitor.
- Putin’s defence minister and Tramp’s UN ambassador, both cabinet-level officials, declared in 2017 that Russia is waging war on the US. Support for Russia is thus treason.
For many centuries there was a doctrine in Europe that civil authority had no power inside a Christian church. In the modern American religion, at least as practiced in territories like Trumpia or Flyoverland, the kill area of a weapon lawfully borne under the Second Amendment subsumes the sanctuary status once held by churches. In the Land of the Free, it is OK to cough or sneeze, and certainly not to wear a mask, as long as you’re displaying this religious symbol. Stillwater’s decision is a tribute to the growing strength of this new, distinctively American religion.
The Stillwater mayor could have specified that masks were still required for those not carrying a gun — those who’d left their religious icon at home — and were thus not explicitly claiming sanctuary, but to his credit, and to avert liberal outrage, he made his order ecumenical.