Comments by "CynicalBroadcast" (@CynicalBastard) on "Twitter Grandstands on Trump Tweet, Falsely Claims He is Glorifying Violence" video.

When the looting starts, the shooting starts I know you have trouble with words, Styx...and I don't agree with Twitter's decorum, anyway...but that phrase above quite literally is the definition of a glorification of violence. Even mentioned "dishonoring" Floyd. This takes way to "glorifying" the actions that Trump is indicating will be taken, to "honor" Floyd: while these looters most definitely are looting cause the state of Minnesota, specifically, "disrespected" Floyd by fucking murdering him. So...yeah, it's glorifying violence...if it's too subtle, it's not for lack of trying.
1
Übermensch Only an idiot would wonder that in such stupid pretense. Would you be willing to destroy a family for the sake of racial hegemony?
1
Übermensch [W]here you alluded that those rioters were somehow justified in their looting and Trump speaking out against them is glorification of violence Yeah, well, you were wrong, so....I never "alluded" to anything of the sort. In fact, all I said that would possibly be called "an allusion" was this: "I don't agree with Twitter's decorum, anyway". Meaning, I don't agree that Twitter should have took down Trump's tweet. But it is a glorification of violence, if only subtle. How tf is speaking against violent rioting thugs be a glorification of violence?? You aren't really getting at the actuality of what is being said. Trump isn't speaking out against violence. He is saying that looting and fires will be met with violence. By suppressing speech against those thugs Twitter just condoned violence and so did you Well, no, cause I didn't support Twitter. I actually said that I didn't approve of what hey did. And no, Twitter didn't "condone" violence by erasing that tweet. That doesn't even make sense. How is it "condoning" violence? They didn't say "we at Twitter approve of the looting and arson of buildings" - did they? No, they didn't. I wonder what will happen to your virtuosity when those rioters reach the property of your loved ones Yeah, it'll spread that far, totally.
1
Übermensch You are short sighted. You are using your short sighted opinions to try and pigeon hole me, for what I said; most of which you can't even apprehend. I never approved of Twitter's actions. You can't seem to acknowledge and comprehend that, because you are short sighted. And what "greater consequences" am I missing? give me an example.
1
Übermensch When you say something, it has to make some kind of sense, and has to be in some kind of inference to something. Safe and virtuous? what? what about those two notions?
1
Übermensch You said that the riots would never spread to a city near It still hasn't made it to me, but no, I didn't say anything about "my" anything, nor any "bubble". Also you said that Trump was wrong to suggest any use of force against the rioters No, wrong again. Yikes, you just imagine things. I said Trump glorified violence with his statements: he even had to quote said statement, he was so apt to glorify the words therein. He had to make it real succinct and almost poetic, so he lifted his statement from someone else. But nevertheless, I never said anything more than that. I don't really think Trump is going to do anything, and if he does it's going to be contentious, either way. I bet you would be begging the govt to protect you once the thugs reach your or your loved one's property You're assuming too much about the nature of peoples' advocacy for non-violence, and the ability to protest, whereby to strip that away [by fears of rioting] would be to impinge on the very nature [indeed] of the spirit of the law in the constitution. They don't really think—like you might think yourself—that they ought to abjure the processes of a "direct action" in "civil disobedience" when the precedence being set, in their minds, will invalidate their own rights, as they see it. You probably don't care, but that's "rights" for ya.
1
>When the looting starts, the shooting starts I know you have trouble with words, Styx...and I don't agree with Twitter's decorum, anyway...but that phrase above quite literally is the definition of a glorification of violence. Even mentioned "dishonoring" Floyd. This takes way to "glorifying" the actions that Trump is indicating will be taken, to "honor" Floyd: while these looters most definitely are looting cause the state of Minnesota, specifically, "disrespected" Floyd by fucking murdering him. So...yeah, it's glorifying violence...if it's too subtle, it's not for lack of trying.
1
I'll be here all day if you morons want to try and rabble-rouse.
1
@RetroMMA I know, right? gee, these "right-wingers" are really gonna help the race, amirite? I am right. They aren't going to help the race. HAW-HAW
1
@rb3425 And there ya go, glorifying it.
1
@rb3425 No, you are glorifying what Trump said, and Trump glorified "the truth" [to you] which is violence. Violence + "honor" = glorifying ... Literally the definition is: to cause to be or treat as being more splendid, excellent, etc., than would normally be considered. to honor with praise, admiration, or worship; extol. to make glorious; invest with glory.
1
@rb3425 Hey, keep glorifying it. The truth will set you free.
1
@rb3425 I do not see how honor has anything to do with it. Looters certainly are not honorable You think it'd be honorable to shoot them. You are seeing Trump using language to glorify violence.
1
It's a revolt. A revolution stems out of revolt: it doesn't get "planned", you idiot.
1
@rb3425 See, you glorified it. That was my point. Win goes to me.
1
@rb3425 No, that's you, you live in your own fantasy world. You just displayed, evinced, and even argued [I won, remember? see above: but of course you don't "remember", you're disconnected from reality, apparently], the very facts, already. How you are glorifying violence is by glorifying what Trump said [which was glorifying violence, as per the definition of "glorifying" {pertaining to "honor", remember? you made my argument for me, above, by evincing how you thought it was "honorable" to shoot looters} and what he said {"Once the looting starts, the shooting starts"}, and the definition of "violence"]. It's really as simple as you not apprehending what it means to "glorify" something [as you have done, and as Trump has done].
1
@rb3425 You are actually so moronic that you think this of me, when really you are lacking reasoning skills. You can't accept the common definition of 'glorify' [because you have to make excuses for yourself], you only have the thought-terminating cliche notion of "you Twitter echo chamber - bad - don't need to reason with you", and well, ok. That's fine, bro. But you didn't really "prove me wrong", prove yourself right, or anything of the sort. You're just too dumb for that to occur.
1
@rb3425 Leftist my ass. Look at my avatar. Do I look like a "leftist" you moron? but aside from that inference, look, pal, friendo...if you don't know what it means to "glorify" something...FINE...but you are a moron for that. Just accept it.
1
@rb3425 I hope no one gets shot.
1