hate these ads?, log in or register to hide them
Page 139 of 161 FirstFirst ... 3989129136137138139140141142149 ... LastLast
Results 2,761 to 2,780 of 3214

Thread: Dos Dedos Mis Amigos (USA Civil Unrest Thread)

  1. #2761
    mewninn's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    3,848
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by NoirAvlaa View Post
    i mean i think most people here support people not having guns, police demilitirising and for people to actually talk. It's just that historically talking hasn't got anyone anywhere in real terms...
    Probably because it's easier to simply kill your perceived enemy than talk to them and convince them of the righteousness and benefits of your cause.

    Dehumanizing and dismissing those your disagree with is the oldest methedology in the books. Everyone loves Democracy.....until he majority doesn't agree or agree enough with their chosen cause.

    Frankly, I don't agree with your premise anyway. Plenty has been changed as the result of discussion and civil action. Most causes have both, some form of anger/protest by the public (and yes even violence), but no small share of professional policymakers and leaders also working to make the change happen. Violence alone didn't change most things, and it can be argued it made them worse at times, stealing away support for the change itself.

    We, as a society, should be better than "change this or I will kill you and burn your home and salt your fields". JMO
    What democracy are we talking about Alistair? The people protesting are majorities within their own cities. City halls are where most of the pressure has landed. They've only given in very slightly by cutting like 5% of the police budget, and even minor reform is stalling in Democrat controlled states like Cali.

    The people who roll into cities with a truck convoy basically want to override the protest because they're not legitimate voters or even Americans in their eyes anymore. I don't know where this strategy of "talk it out" is supposed to lead if people can't get concessions in the places where they should have the most leverage.
    Last edited by mewninn; August 31 2020 at 03:50:25 PM.

  2. #2762
    NoirAvlaa's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 12, 2011
    Location
    Liverpool, laaaa
    Posts
    5,660
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by NoirAvlaa View Post
    i mean i think most people here support people not having guns, police demilitirising and for people to actually talk. It's just that historically talking hasn't got anyone anywhere in real terms...
    Probably because it's easier to simply kill your perceived enemy than talk to them and convince them of the righteousness and benefits of your cause.

    Dehumanizing and dismissing those your disagree with is the oldest methedology in the books. Everyone loves Democracy.....until he majority doesn't agree or agree enough with their chosen cause.

    Frankly, I don't agree with your premise anyway. Plenty has been changed as the result of discussion and civil action. Most causes have both, some form of anger/protest by the public (and yes even violence), but no small share of professional policymakers and leaders also working to make the change happen. Violence alone didn't change most things, and it can be argued it made them worse at times, stealing away support for the change itself.

    We, as a society, should be better than "change this or I will kill you and burn your home and salt your fields". JMO
    What major policies have been enacted due to talking with no background of riots or violence?

    E: fucking about with the fringes of anything doesn't count.

    Sent from my Potato using my fingers
    Quote Originally Posted by Djan Seriy Anaplian View Post
    Also that didn't sound like abloo bloo to me, PM me and we can agree on a meeting spot and settle this with queensberry rules, that's a serious offer btw. I've been a member of this community since 2005 and i've never met a more toxic individual.

  3. #2763
    Alistair's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    15,360
    Quote Originally Posted by Lachesis VII View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by NoirAvlaa View Post
    i mean i think most people here support people not having guns, police demilitirising and for people to actually talk. It's just that historically talking hasn't got anyone anywhere in real terms...
    Probably because it's easier to simply kill your perceived enemy than talk to them and convince them of the righteousness and benefits of your cause.

    Dehumanizing and dismissing those your disagree with is the oldest methedology in the books. Everyone loves Democracy.....until he majority doesn't agree or agree enough with their chosen cause.

    Frankly, I don't agree with your premise anyway. Plenty has been changed as the result of discussion and civil action. Most causes have both, some form of anger/protest by the public (and yes even violence), but no small share of professional policymakers and leaders also working to make the change happen. Violence alone didn't change most things, and it can be argued it made them worse at times, stealing away support for the change itself.

    We, as a society, should be better than "change this or I will kill you and burn your home and salt your fields". JMO
    You’re welcome to go out to one of these protests and try to talk to these militia folks and the angry people with Trump flags.

    I’ve tried at events here in WA, but they’re not generally interested in talking to anyone who isn’t already “on their side.” That was before people started getting shot, but I don’t think they’ve gotten more chatty or open-minded in the meantime.

    I’ve had slightly more luck with ordinary trump supporters outside of a protest environment, but even then there’s a wall of “nope can’t consider that” when you start getting into maybe questioning their support for trump or pointing out harm caused by him being in office.

    My own father has started sending me inflammatory/inciting text messages, and when I respond, saying “I wasn’t asking for a discussion I’m going to bed.”

    Not quite sure what to do at this point. It always boils down to the people the Trump folks don’t like deserving to be hurt/suffer. And now that they’re running around en-masse with rifles, I’m less inclined to go out and talk to them, and more inclined to stay home and start figuring out if there’s anything I can do to defend my neighborhood if a squad of goons in pickup trucks decides to roll through and shoot people.
    I'm not worried at all about Squads of Right-Wing Goons shooting up my neighborhood, but I am worried about "Protesters" burning down things in my area.

    With that said, if we do not all collectively deescalate at some point, we'll all need to be worried about Squads of "soldiers" from both side shooting people. Civil Wars seem to always end up that way.

    A few points:

    1. Talking to the most extremist part of the opposition in the streets mid-protest after arson and shootings have occurred is dumb. You're way too late by that point. Don't waste your time. De-escalate, go home, get out of the streets. Stop the arson and shootings first, then see where you can go.

    2. Changing minds isn't instantaneous. If you expect a random Trumpist to have a 'Paul on the way to Damascus' moment and go "OMG, yur so RIGHT, I will abandon all my deeply held beliefs, thank you!!!!" because you told them something in the middle of a protest, your expectations are too high.

    Changing minds takes hard work and time. Which is why no one bothers to try and do it anymore. You wouldn't do it if a Trumpist spoke to you, so why would you expect it to work the other way round?

    3. I'd say the first thing to do is try to understand your fathers point of view and how he and his life experiences got him to that point of view. Frankly, too many people think they know everything, that their view is righteous and unassailable, and every view opposing them is dumb or evil or both. Don't presume you're right, try and understand why they think what they think without presuming it's racism, or evil, or hate. I'd say that might help.

    Again, by the time you're in the streets with rifles and a desire to shoot people for not agreeing with you, you've already lost. Everyone has already lost.


  4. #2764
    Alistair's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    15,360
    Quote Originally Posted by mewninn View Post
    What democracy are we talking about Alistair? The people protesting are majorities within their own cities. City halls are where most of the pressure has landed. They've only given in very slightly by cutting like 5% of the police budget, and even minor reform is stalling in Democrat controlled states like Cali.

    The people who roll into cities with a truck convoy basically want to override the protest because they're not legitimate voters or even Americans in their eyes anymore. I don't know where this strategy of "talk it out" is supposed to lead if people can't get concessions in the places where they should have the most leverage.
    If they are in fact "the majority" in their cities, they chose the leaders who failed to sort our their city police. If it's so important to get X, and they are the majority, they have the power to elect someone who will address X. To ignore that failed us of political power and to chose indiscriminate violence instead is ignorance covering up a disdain for democracy in the first place.

    People need to understand and accept that you have not convinced the majority that getting rid of the police is a good idea. In point of fact, your actions (in general, not you specifically, to be clear) are arguing in the other direction: that trusting your 'side' is a bad idea, because you're violent and destructive when you don't get everything you want when you demand it.

    Most of all, if you no longer see value in "talk it out" or democracy itself, it's hard to see you as materially different than the very Fascists you claim to oppose. You have abandoned the ideas of voting and representation and democracy and laws and a civil society, and simply and clearly prefer a flavor of totalitarianism with your side at the helm.


  5. #2765
    Alistair's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    15,360
    Quote Originally Posted by NoirAvlaa View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by NoirAvlaa View Post
    i mean i think most people here support people not having guns, police demilitirising and for people to actually talk. It's just that historically talking hasn't got anyone anywhere in real terms...
    Probably because it's easier to simply kill your perceived enemy than talk to them and convince them of the righteousness and benefits of your cause.

    Dehumanizing and dismissing those your disagree with is the oldest methedology in the books. Everyone loves Democracy.....until he majority doesn't agree or agree enough with their chosen cause.

    Frankly, I don't agree with your premise anyway. Plenty has been changed as the result of discussion and civil action. Most causes have both, some form of anger/protest by the public (and yes even violence), but no small share of professional policymakers and leaders also working to make the change happen. Violence alone didn't change most things, and it can be argued it made them worse at times, stealing away support for the change itself.

    We, as a society, should be better than "change this or I will kill you and burn your home and salt your fields". JMO
    What major policies have been enacted due to talking with no background of riots or violence?

    E: fucking about with the fringes of anything doesn't count.

    Sent from my Potato using my fingers
    I'll repeat, most causes have both, some form of anger/protest by the public (and yes even violence), but no small share of professional policymakers and political leaders also working to make the actual legal changes happen. Sure, you can dismiss it as incrementalism if you like, if only a "give me everythign I demand now" is the only outcome you can/will accept.

    Street violence never passed a single law.

    And I'll tell you right now, the ongoing indiscriminate street violence and continued escalations isn't helping the cause of combating Police violence nor is it hurting the Trump reelection campaign.

    Tell me Noir, what do you see coming from/out of the Street violence that will solve the issue of Police Violence, specifically?

    Now, before I get told "I'm ignoring" posts or "won't answer" posts, I got shit to do, so no, I'm not ignoring any replies, but I'm spending all day here either. If you choose to dismiss my opinion or disagree with it, ok.


  6. #2766
    Liare's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    14,738
    Quote Originally Posted by Candy Crush View Post
    Do you people still believe this is about Black Lives Matter? This is something else entirely.
    Only thing left to wonder me is when will some idiot decides to self activate and commit a mass shooting.
    yes, fundamentally it's about justice and if that is not a principle worth going to bat for, nothing is.

    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Protesting while in possession of a weapon or body armor of any kind should (IMO) be illegal.

    The right to peacefully assemble and to air ones grievances is not unlimited or without reasonable restrictions and regulation, same as any right.

    The 2nd Amendment should also be repealed, but that's another topic.

    The same thing Cops need to do a hell of alot more of now also needs done by all the sides of this protest war mess: deescalation, demilitarization, and discussion.

    I don't expect many here (especially) to support this post, but such is life.
    see, i disagree with you on that.

    while guns have no place in peaceful a protest, disarming the population significantly alters the power balance between people and the state. having access to firearms, in some context or another, without it being trough state organs helps redress some of that balance. you could easily formalize it into a actual militia structure, such as operated in Scandinavian countries where the militia is a fully fledged part-time voulenteer military force separate from the regular armed forces. it in turns acts as a backstop on state overreach precisely because there are firearms and people with the skills to use them "out there" in the population if need be, without being directly beholden to the state the way law enforcement or traditional military is.

    would a disarmed american police force be less violent ? less prone to flat out hurting people for kicks ? consider how floyd died before you answer that. my personal viewpoint has shifted significantly on this over the last two years by the way.
    Viking, n.:
    1. Daring Scandinavian seafarers, explorers, adventurers, entrepreneurs world-famous for their aggressive, nautical import business, highly leveraged takeovers and blue eyes.
    2. Bloodthirsty sea pirates who ravaged northern Europe beginning in the 9th century.

    Hagar's note: The first definition is much preferred; the second is used only by malcontents, the envious, and disgruntled owners of waterfront property.

  7. #2767
    Venec's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Europe's Mexico - Poland
    Posts
    7,217
    With that attitude you'd still be ruled by kings tied to a field there Allistair. Street violence got you the whole civil rights and modern democratic thought with French Revolution for example, and if you want a more modern example, fall of communism in Poland had plenty of street violence, Solidarność started with big riots.

    You're objectively wrong saying fundamental changes in society happen by just really asking nice and convincing majority, whatever that means. Open any history book, the more you crackdown on people and deny their rights and oppose change the more violence they bring upon themselves. You just want order because status quo doesn't inconvenience you, not justice.
    Last edited by Venec; August 31 2020 at 04:38:55 PM.

  8. #2768
    mewninn's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    3,848
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by mewninn View Post
    What democracy are we talking about Alistair? The people protesting are majorities within their own cities. City halls are where most of the pressure has landed. They've only given in very slightly by cutting like 5% of the police budget, and even minor reform is stalling in Democrat controlled states like Cali.

    The people who roll into cities with a truck convoy basically want to override the protest because they're not legitimate voters or even Americans in their eyes anymore. I don't know where this strategy of "talk it out" is supposed to lead if people can't get concessions in the places where they should have the most leverage.
    If they are in fact "the majority" in their cities, they chose the leaders who failed to sort our their city police. If it's so important to get X, and they are the majority, they have the power to elect someone who will address X. To ignore that failed us of political power and to chose indiscriminate violence instead is ignorance covering up a disdain for democracy in the first place.

    People need to understand and accept that you have not convinced the majority that getting rid of the police is a good idea. In point of fact, your actions (in general, not you specifically, to be clear) are arguing in the other direction: that trusting your 'side' is a bad idea, because you're violent and destructive when you don't get everything you want when you demand it.

    Most of all, if you no longer see value in "talk it out" or democracy itself, it's hard to see you as materially different than the very Fascists you claim to oppose. You have abandoned the ideas of voting and representation and democracy and laws and a civil society, and simply and clearly prefer a flavor of totalitarianism with your side at the helm.
    What majority Alistair? That's the question I'll keep asking. For reforming PPD or NYPD what's the majority that's so important besides the people in Portland or NYC?

    A majority within these cities are in favor of reform and it's been stalled repeatedly. They don't need any permission from suburban truck owners on how they run their city or their police department. That's not how democracy works, hell that's not even how the federalism and localism you love so much works.

    People mostly tolerate the electoral college as "just the way it is", but they won't tolerate the goal posts constantly being moved to set up a phoney-baloney one to limit their local politics

  9. #2769
    NoirAvlaa's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 12, 2011
    Location
    Liverpool, laaaa
    Posts
    5,660
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Street violence never passed a single law.
    I mean, that's just an absurd thing to say. The Civil Rights Movement wasn't exactly a peaceful protest. Neither was the end of Apartheid. Or the French Revolution(s). Or Magna Carta. Or LGTB rights. Or pretty much all of workers' rights. These things are taken from the upper classes, not given after a nice talk.

    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Tell me Noir, what do you see coming from/out of the Street violence that will solve the issue of Police Violence, specifically?
    Demilitarisation of the Police, more funding for social programs, more funding for mental health issues, more training for de-escalation for the police, better bias training for police, removal of qualified immunity, amongst other things. You know, things that stop police shooting people and make neighbourhoods actually safe.
    Quote Originally Posted by Djan Seriy Anaplian View Post
    Also that didn't sound like abloo bloo to me, PM me and we can agree on a meeting spot and settle this with queensberry rules, that's a serious offer btw. I've been a member of this community since 2005 and i've never met a more toxic individual.

  10. #2770
    Keckers's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 31, 2012
    Posts
    22,070
    Maybe if we just ask nicely the rich will stop hoarding all the wealth created by labour.
    Look, the wages you withheld from the workmen who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of Hosts. You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence. You have fattened yourselves for slaughter.

  11. #2771
    Lachesis VII's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 20, 2011
    Location
    Egghelende
    Posts
    6,151
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post

    I'm not worried at all about Squads of Right-Wing Goons shooting up my neighborhood, but I am worried about "Protesters" burning down things in my area.
    Well, you don't live in the rural Pacific Northwest. Things are a little tense up here. https://www.peninsuladailynews.com/c...ers-of-antifa/

    I'm a little bit (but only just a little bit) surprised that you see small-scale property destruction and localized protest (most of these protests are not huge, they're taking place within a few blocks for the most part) as a bigger threat than a caravan of hundreds of armed militants driving across the state to harass and intimidate the protestors.

    Also, can you show me any neighborhoods that have been burned down by protestors? The only residential structure I'm aware of that has been destroyed was an under-construction housing complex in Minneapolis. And I'm not sure there's any proof it was a protestor (rather the now-documented outside agitators who were destroying property at the outset of the riots in MN) who set the fire.

    Your fear seems misplaced.

    With that said, if we do not all collectively deescalate at some point, we'll all need to be worried about Squads of "soldiers" from both side shooting people. Civil Wars seem to always end up that way.

    A few points:

    1. Talking to the most extremist part of the opposition in the streets mid-protest after arson and shootings have occurred is dumb. You're way too late by that point. Don't waste your time. De-escalate, go home, get out of the streets. Stop the arson and shootings first, then see where you can go.
    I haven't taken this approach since COVID started; this has been my approach at protest and campaign/canvassing events from 2015 through, say early 2019. I have not participated in any meaningful activism this year.

    2. Changing minds isn't instantaneous. If you expect a random Trumpist to have a 'Paul on the way to Damascus' moment and go "OMG, yur so RIGHT, I will abandon all my deeply held beliefs, thank you!!!!" because you told them something in the middle of a protest, your expectations are too high.

    Changing minds takes hard work and time. Which is why no one bothers to try and do it anymore. You wouldn't do it if a Trumpist spoke to you, so why would you expect it to work the other way round?
    You're not wrong, but due to the way that our lives are structured, unless there's a trump supporter in your regular social circle (family, work, circle of friends, etc.), you're not going to have the opportunity for repeated contact and whatnot. Only person like that in my life is my father, going to..

    3. I'd say the first thing to do is try to understand your fathers point of view and how he and his life experiences got him to that point of view. Frankly, too many people think they know everything, that their view is righteous and unassailable, and every view opposing them is dumb or evil or both. Don't presume you're right, try and understand why they think what they think without presuming it's racism, or evil, or hate. I'd say that might help.
    Been trying to do that for a few decades now. Unsure where the fascist impulses came from (all the books on his shelf regarding the holocaust and Nazi history might have something to do with it), or how far back his racism and antisemitism go, but the turning point was having his programming job outsourced to India, and then being out-competed for jobs by young people of color after he retrained to become an RN. Of course this is the guy who started his working life as a jazz musician in Manhattan, we had tons of Jewish family friends in New York growing up, etc., etc. But these days he seems to be pretty vehemently anti-black and anti-Hispanic, complains about "the Jews," thinks the Democrats are communists, spends all day watching Fox, NewsMax, and OANN. The usual. Like, he's told me that he served on a jury a few years ago (still lives in Manhattan) and decided the suspect was guilty as soon as he saw him because he was black.

    Dunno what to do about that.

    Again, by the time you're in the streets with rifles and a desire to shoot people for not agreeing with you, you've already lost. Everyone has already lost.
    Yeah, which is why I'm very pointedly not in the street.
    Last edited by Lachesis VII; August 31 2020 at 05:07:49 PM.

  12. #2772

    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    379
    The idolization of peaceful protest is a tactic use by the ruling class to protect the status-quo (since it posses no threat). No meaningful change has ever come without (the threat of) violence.

  13. #2773
    Timaios's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    1,222
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Street violence never passed a single law.
    I'm a bit surprised to be referring US history to you, but the LGBTQ rights movement did not start at Stonewall or at Compton. Actually prior to that there were several pickets or other peaceful protests advocating for LGBTQ rights. They disagreed with the approaches taken by the more direct protesters and were actually trying to get the pride parades and riots against the police stopped because they wanted to advance the movement via 'peaceful' avenues. History does not really even remember them, nor did they make any headway with LGBTQ rights. To all laymen, the LGBTQ movement started at Stonewall.

    So I'd argue that yes, street violence has certainly lead to passing laws.

    Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connaît point. - Blaise Pascal, Pensées, 277

  14. #2774
    Lachesis VII's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 20, 2011
    Location
    Egghelende
    Posts
    6,151
    Quote Originally Posted by Timaios View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Street violence never passed a single law.
    I'm a bit surprised to be referring US history to you, but the LGBTQ rights movement did not start at Stonewall or at Compton. Actually prior to that there were several pickets or other peaceful protests advocating for LGBTQ rights. They disagreed with the approaches taken by the more direct protesters and were actually trying to get the pride parades and riots against the police stopped because they wanted to advance the movement via 'peaceful' avenues. History does not really even remember them, nor did they make any headway with LGBTQ rights. To all laymen, the LGBTQ movement started at Stonewall.

    So I'd argue that yes, street violence has certainly lead to passing laws.
    See also, Haymarket.

    But in reality there's almost always a dual thread to unrest, a majority nonviolent group and a minority violent group. When progress results from unrest, it's usually because of the nonviolent group getting a seat at the table under the implicit understanding that not bringing them to the table will result in the violent group getting larger.

  15. #2775

    Join Date
    May 30, 2011
    Location
    asleep
    Posts
    7,055
    I'm struggling to see any de-escalation path at this point.

    The normal's are not going to stop wanting to get shot by police, and the mental fuckers in pickups with AR's have had a stiffy for shooting up the projects for years. Even November's election is either going to serve as a validation or provide an excuse for further shooting up the projects.

    Who on capitol hill can gather enough politcal will and muscle to enforce any kind of cooling down ?
    Please don't teach me what to do with my pc.

  16. #2776

    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    379
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by mewninn View Post
    What democracy are we talking about Alistair? The people protesting are majorities within their own cities. City halls are where most of the pressure has landed. They've only given in very slightly by cutting like 5% of the police budget, and even minor reform is stalling in Democrat controlled states like Cali.

    The people who roll into cities with a truck convoy basically want to override the protest because they're not legitimate voters or even Americans in their eyes anymore. I don't know where this strategy of "talk it out" is supposed to lead if people can't get concessions in the places where they should have the most leverage.
    If they are in fact "the majority" in their cities, they chose the leaders who failed to sort our their city police. If it's so important to get X, and they are the majority, they have the power to elect someone who will address X. To ignore that failed us of political power and to chose indiscriminate violence instead is ignorance covering up a disdain for democracy in the first place.

    People need to understand and accept that you have not convinced the majority that getting rid of the police is a good idea. In point of fact, your actions (in general, not you specifically, to be clear) are arguing in the other direction: that trusting your 'side' is a bad idea, because you're violent and destructive when you don't get everything you want when you demand it.

    Most of all, if you no longer see value in "talk it out" or democracy itself, it's hard to see you as materially different than the very Fascists you claim to oppose. You have abandoned the ideas of voting and representation and democracy and laws and a civil society, and simply and clearly prefer a flavor of totalitarianism with your side at the helm.
    So really the slaves were the facists, for not accepting the position the democratically elected leaders had put them in...

  17. #2777

    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    Pizza delivery van
    Posts
    7,601
    God-Presiden Regan 2020!

  18. #2778
    NoirAvlaa's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 12, 2011
    Location
    Liverpool, laaaa
    Posts
    5,660
    btw noone wants to get rid of the police. We just want them to be better. And to have other services available so the Police aren't so required in the first place.
    Quote Originally Posted by Djan Seriy Anaplian View Post
    Also that didn't sound like abloo bloo to me, PM me and we can agree on a meeting spot and settle this with queensberry rules, that's a serious offer btw. I've been a member of this community since 2005 and i've never met a more toxic individual.

  19. #2779
    Approaching Walrus's Avatar
    Join Date
    March 8, 2013
    Posts
    9,803


    Big brains of FHC have convened and the conclusion is clear. It's over. Just grill and play CK3 while you can.

  20. #2780
    Liare's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    14,738
    Quote Originally Posted by NoirAvlaa View Post
    btw noone wants to get rid of the police. We just want them to be better. And to have other services available so the Police aren't so required in the first place.
    *cough*
    Viking, n.:
    1. Daring Scandinavian seafarers, explorers, adventurers, entrepreneurs world-famous for their aggressive, nautical import business, highly leveraged takeovers and blue eyes.
    2. Bloodthirsty sea pirates who ravaged northern Europe beginning in the 9th century.

    Hagar's note: The first definition is much preferred; the second is used only by malcontents, the envious, and disgruntled owners of waterfront property.

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •