I mean that I can't read your mind, and it doesn't enhance discussion for me to assume what you meant.
Did you know that if you don't understand something, you can ask questions? Nobody requires being combative or dismissive.
Wait, so you are comparing the two, contradicting your previous comment?
The two what? If you can answer this question correctly, you will understand what I am actually comparing. If one of the two things is genocide, you will have failed to understand. Feel free to ask questions.
tangent stuff
Feel free to argue about it with someone else. I have no interest in arguing about what Dems in general are doing, I'm answering specific claims about Walz.
Your idea of what a tangent is is entirely opaque, including whatever you think you are "quoting". It feels like you are talking to yourself, really. Please make a reattempt by quoting what I actually said and then telling me why you think it is a tangent. Or by replying with enough context for me to have any idea what you're talking about.
Yes, this is exactly what you've done, due to black and white thistated
You seem to have missed the point. Can you tell me what my point was? I also said that it is possible to fail to see patterns due to over-contextualization. Why was I saying that? I think I stated it directly.
You're confused about the situation. I don't think we're getting anywhere, so let's agree on "Fuck MPD".
Perhaps you could deign to tell me how I am confused.
It can be hard to tell who exactly is responsible for which actions, because a lot of reporting just says " police"
It seems that you might be the confused one? My knowledge does not come from a Wikipedia article, but you are revealing that this is your level of understanding.
Interestingly, the most objectionable thing that I remember (the "light 'em up" thing)
Remember from what? Were you ever on the street? Anywhere near Washington and 35th? Do you have contacts with those who engaged? Did you watch weeks of footage? Anywhere? I wouldn't ask but you've leaned pretty heavily on alleging your personal recollection and the implication that you are local but I get the sense that you were just a remote observer like most people that didn't actually follow very closely. Being tens or hundreds of miles away whole watching TV news would not make you an authority of any kind, just so you know.
I was picking the most relevant bits, as otherwise conversation tends to explode in size exponentially.
Define relevant. My impression is that you ignored the direct challenges. I would rather not go back and repeat myself. That would be silly, don't you think? But if you just ignore the inconvenient statements we won't really get anywhere.
So, don't you remember any of the things I have listed? Do you not see the connection between Walz calling in the National Guard to crush the George Floyd protests and state violence? Or in the crushing of the protests? Do you not understand that tear gas and rubber bullets and arrests are state violence? Do you not understand that a lack of consequences for cops, soldiers, etc is a green light in response to "bad behavior" (it is actually the desired behavior, hence a lack of consequence). Your memory of events is good, right? Hence the questioning of whether I am local and an appeal to how well you remember all of this, eh?
These are the things you apparently think are irrelevant. Oh dear.
Did you know that if you don't understand something, you can ask questions? Nobody requires being combative or dismissive.
The two what? If you can answer this question correctly, you will understand what I am actually comparing. If one of the two things is genocide, you will have failed to understand. Feel free to ask questions.
Your idea of what a tangent is is entirely opaque, including whatever you think you are "quoting". It feels like you are talking to yourself, really. Please make a reattempt by quoting what I actually said and then telling me why you think it is a tangent. Or by replying with enough context for me to have any idea what you're talking about.
You seem to have missed the point. Can you tell me what my point was? I also said that it is possible to fail to see patterns due to over-contextualization. Why was I saying that? I think I stated it directly.
Perhaps you could deign to tell me how I am confused.
It seems that you might be the confused one? My knowledge does not come from a Wikipedia article, but you are revealing that this is your level of understanding.
Remember from what? Were you ever on the street? Anywhere near Washington and 35th? Do you have contacts with those who engaged? Did you watch weeks of footage? Anywhere? I wouldn't ask but you've leaned pretty heavily on alleging your personal recollection and the implication that you are local but I get the sense that you were just a remote observer like most people that didn't actually follow very closely. Being tens or hundreds of miles away whole watching TV news would not make you an authority of any kind, just so you know.
Define relevant. My impression is that you ignored the direct challenges. I would rather not go back and repeat myself. That would be silly, don't you think? But if you just ignore the inconvenient statements we won't really get anywhere.
So, don't you remember any of the things I have listed? Do you not see the connection between Walz calling in the National Guard to crush the George Floyd protests and state violence? Or in the crushing of the protests? Do you not understand that tear gas and rubber bullets and arrests are state violence? Do you not understand that a lack of consequences for cops, soldiers, etc is a green light in response to "bad behavior" (it is actually the desired behavior, hence a lack of consequence). Your memory of events is good, right? Hence the questioning of whether I am local and an appeal to how well you remember all of this, eh?
These are the things you apparently think are irrelevant. Oh dear.