Changing definitions to control debate and opposition. An unsettling trend.

Originally posted by darkbake

Originally posted by Mr Tranny


When you reach that point, then you create a condition like that, you create a powder keg. When you make the peaceful resolution of a problem impossible, then you make a violent resolution inevitable.

You make the peaceful resolution impossible by making it illegal to even discuss the problem. Pretty soon, the laws become so insane that the population will revolt against those laws.

Yeah exactly. This. You can only cover up a situation and try to keep it under wraps for so long. In fact, the more you try to get away with doing something, by adding surveillance, or military presence, or drones, etc. etc. the bigger the resulting powder keg will be.

Talking about the issues and solving them is actually a good idea - because that is one of the easier ways to get things done and balanced again. Ignoring that method only takes mankind to the next method.

There is really no point in bringing these problems up unless you are asking for a solution or posing possible answers. Otherwise you are only doing the same thing as major news outlets, keeping people in fear and on edge without discussing a solution. The fallen ones have built a system relying on control, but trying to control something will only ever bring about chaos. But chaos will help to ferment greater individuality, which will build the foothold for our freedom and the eventual global acknowledgement of our human inherent natural rights.

re MrTran, Discussing the solution or any sharing of knowledge is inherently a right of humanity and no government, group, or person can create any law or code that overrides your natural ability when you haven't harmed another person's rights. The enforcers of these rules are intentionally ignorant of them, or they wouldn't be able to keep their job. But their masters ARE aware of these laws and will back down if challenged by Truth. If police harm you, steal from you, or harass and detain you when you did not harm another person's rights, then they are the ones committing violence against you under false belief, don't blame an institution or association for the orders that these individuals CHOSE to carry out. Don't hate them either, they are mostly ignorant and being used like dogs. But you should be ready to defend yourself against them as you would any person. A uniform doesn't give them special privilege or extra rights that you don't get. Record your encounters for evidence in either audio or video. Develop a community that will stand up for the rights of people harmed by these acts of violence and abuse. Don't accept their false understanding.

Originally posted by Mr Tranny
reply to post by dogstar23

 

That statement would be funny, if it wasn’t for the media, and the left at large constantly doing just that.
(Blaming the conservative movement at large.)

www.politicususa.com...
“Behind Their Patriotic Disguise The Tea Party Behaves Like The American Taliban”

latftp.com...
“Look At This F###ing Tea Partier”

www.breitbart.com...
“The Usual Suspects: ABC's Ross, Stephanopoulos Point to Tea Party in Dark Knight Shooting”

www.theblaze.com...
“Here are 6 Moments Where the Media has Wrongly Blamed Conservatives (and the Tea Party) for Violence”

And keep in mind, all those major attacks were finally proven to NOT be right wing extremists. Think of how the media would have covered it, if they were right wing extremists.

Just look around the web, you will find countless legions of democrat sites where they are implying the actions of one member is a statement for the whole conservative/republican group.

Like the thread on this very site where they took an interview of one very drunk EDL member and tried to imply that that is the rank and file EDL member.

It’s almost pathetic to even have to point out something so obvious..

Your point there may well be valid. I guess I'm going off what I see and hear, which is mainly from real people, and mmedia outlets I choose to pay attention to (which doesn't include imbecilic right wing/left wing media.) So I guess, maybe there is a push by certain media outlets to paint with the other side of the broad brush which I hear often in the "real world" - it would appear then, that they're trying to close the gap, to get as many people as possible, from both of the main opposing factions, to look upon religious and/or ethnic groups with suspicion - all of them - because of the actions of the few. Another divide & conquer, only stepping the game up a notch.

Originally posted by Ghost375

You have to look at history. White Christians have had an easy ride and have been in charge, and still are, for a long time. That's why saying things about certain ethnicities is much different

We can make fun of these groups, because there's not a history of hate towards them. Making fun of groups that have had a history of hate towards them looks very wrong if not done perfectly or by a comedian.

Do you understand the difference now?

Yes, one can hold a license to hate. You just have to justify it with something acceptable. I understand.

reply to post by TheEthicalSkeptic


You do realize that hating someone will generally reflect the energy back at you, right?

reply to post by vv3vv3vv


I am bringing up the problems from a different perspective, hopefully one that is useful to someone. I don't think the news outlets even bother to try and get to the core of the issue.

And discussion and gathering information allows for informed decisions when it is time to make them. The more informed the decision, the more likely it will have a positive result.

Without an informed decision, results could vary anywhere from being not very effective to falling right into a trap or ambush.

edit on 3-6-2013 by darkbake because: (no reason given)