Triggered: Stories to make you mad.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
Looks like he is going for the Kyle Rittenhouse defence... Both of them in my opinion are agent provocateurs. Regardless of right or left, why have a gun at a rally?

Except of course left wing media immediately labeled him a white supremacist without cause while they are largely silent about this guys verified views and the support the guy he was "guarding" had.

And kyle was defending himself, this guy tried to steal a guys bear mace, dude reacted, then the guy shot him.

Son: this is not the hill to die on.

Originally posted by Surtur
But still, if a woke leftist here could let me know how an idea can hold a protest...hit me up, thanks in advance!

This idea somehow threw a soup drive with BLM. Is this like a tulpa or something that we created? I'm so confused cuz educated lefties say it's not a group.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
Surely all protests start as a philosophical idea of like-minded individuals or individuals with a common goal. You would not have to be Antifa to be antifascist, you might be Steve Rogers.

Son I ask once more how an idea can throw a protest. A protest can be about an idea, but a group still has to organize it.

Also how do ideas hold food drives?

Originally posted by Surtur
Except of course left wing media immediately labeled him a white supremacist without cause while they are largely silent about this guys verified views and the support the guy he was "guarding" had.

And kyle was defending himself, this guy tried to steal a guys bear mace, dude reacted, then the guy shot him.

Son: this is not the hill to die on.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
This guy says he was protecting himself, the Kyle Rittenhouse defence is going to cause many copycats. That Larper has a lot to answer for. All these people who bring guns to protests should be arrested, you have a situation where emotions run high and add firearms to the mix... In the Rittenhouse case the left-wing guy with the handgun should also be arrested, your laws are ****ed.

The evidence suggests otherwise for him though. So nope it's not like the Kyle case.

You wanna keep going with this false equivalency or wisely stop?

They have called themselves BLM Antifa, I think that's easy to understand. You could label yourself a woman if you wanted or even a Unicorn.

Originally posted by Surtur
The evidence suggests otherwise for him though. So nope it's not like the Kyle case.

You wanna keep going with this false equivalency or wisely stop?

The evidence of self defense for kyle is sound, with this guy is not he provoked an attack, got maced and then fired.

Originally posted by Surtur
The evidence of self defense for kyle is sound, with this guy is not he provoked an attack, got maced and then fired.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
They have called themselves BLM Antifa, I think that's easy to understand. You could label yourself a woman if you wanted or even a Unicorn.

The soup drive was held by both groups lol. This is not hard to figure out, if you're that triggered you can't bring yourself to acknowledge this I'll stop asking you to do things that make you uncomfortable, which sometimes the truth can be 🙂

Originally posted by Surtur
The soup drive was held by both groups lol. This is not hard to figure out, if you're that triggered you can't bring yourself to acknowledge this I'll stop asking you to do things that make you uncomfortable, which sometimes the truth can be 🙂

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
We'll see. We'll also see if he is considered an agent provocateur. Which I suspect he will be.

There is no "will see". The video evidence is clear. Now a jury might choose to ignore that, but it won't change reality that Kyle did not act until provoked.

The same can't be said here, this guy did the provoking, then shot the guy when he responded. A veteran.

I get that you guys were used to saying far lefties didn't really kill folk and this must be hard, and I'm sorry for that(I am not sorry for it).

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
They are groups calling themselves these things.

He called it a group, yes! Baby steps! I know you'll f*ck it up in a further response to try to save face, but this is progress. Proud of you. Hope your dry throat gets better maybe get a cough drop brah or some of that spray.

Originally posted by Surtur
There is no "will see". The video evidence is clear. Now a jury might choose to ignore that, but it won't change reality that Kyle did not act until provoked.

The same can't be said here, this guy did the provoking, then shot the guy when he responded. A veteran.

I get that you guys were used to saying far lefties didn't really kill folk and this must be hard, and I'm sorry for that(I am not sorry for it).

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
We will see. I've stated my opinion on this numerous times and we disagree.

We will see what a jury concludes, but you provided no evidence to support the notion this wasn't self defense.

Carrying a gun, even illegally, is not grounds for someone to be able to attack you. Maybe in the UK it is, but here it is not. And it's not like they would have known the legal status of the gun.

He might end up charged for lesser things, like the gun carrying. But when it comes to murder, no sane jury looking at the evidence would say it was not self defense.

If I steal a car and then two miles down the road a mob of "protesters" who have no idea the car is stolen...surround the car, start smashing windows, and drying to drag me out and I flee and run over one of them in the car that is still self defense. I should be charged with theft, but not with murder.

Staten Island GOP hoodwinks Trump rally saboteurs into donating thousands to Republican Party

UN Women:

Me:

Originally posted by Surtur
UN Women:

Me:

I'm interrupted more by women at work than men, by far. It's the jumping to conclusions and assumptions causing it. Not sure why, but women seem to jump to conclusions and make assumptions before I or others can finish speaking. Sometimes, it's embarrassing for them because they are proven wrong or shown why they needed to be quiet just a few more seconds as soon as the person can finish speaking. But I have an IT bias and women in IT are often bulls/outspoken because of how male dominated the profession still is so it requires a certain type of woman to wade through the male-bullshit to be successful. But I mostly work with mangers and directors so, obviously, you're going to see more Type A women who make it to that level. But even at the low-levels, women were like this in IT.

There are the autistic types, usually males, who interrupt you quite often to correct you before you can complete a sentence.

But wait, is there a term for this? Womassumptions? Femerruptions?

It has to be more condescending. Bitchteruption?