Read on Twitter
Tens of millions of Americans think the person on the left is the violent aggressor.
Location South Carolina, late May.
Photo Credit: CrushRush
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=2882282881998706&id=100006510664599
Photo Credit: CrushRush
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=2882282881998706&id=100006510664599
Enjoying hearing all the angrily-phrased reasons why the individual in military gear with the supporting army, the military gear, and the massive gun pointed, leveled, and finger on trigger is not, in fact, the violent aggressor. Excellent work guys. Keep them coming.
to all the photo angle mavens https://twitter.com/el_tamar/status/1287706399636684801?s=21 https://twitter.com/eL_Tamar/status/1287706399636684801
Believe it or not I still think the guy in military gear pointing a gun at the unarmed person’s face is the aggressor. https://twitter.com/darkmoon001_/status/1287763797915074560?s=21 https://twitter.com/Darkmoon001_/status/1287763797915074560
Extraordinary how eager people are to prove that they will offer any rationale, no matter how flimsy, no matter how irrelevant to the situation, for a militarized cop to aim his weapon at an unarmed civilian.
It's a militarized authority pointing a weapon at somebody who has no weapon and no defense.
Every single justification is designed to obscure that simple fact.
It's a militarized authority pointing a weapon at somebody who has no weapon and no defense.
Every single justification is designed to obscure that simple fact.
It's a militarized authority pointing a weapon at somebody who has no weapon and no defense.
"Violence happened elsewhere at some other protest!"
"She didn't obey!"
"The angle is misleading!"
"She doesn't have to be there!"
"Property damage!"
"BOTH SIDES!"
It's a militarized authority pointing a weapon at somebody who has no weapon and no defense.
"She didn't obey!"
"The angle is misleading!"
"She doesn't have to be there!"
"Property damage!"
"BOTH SIDES!"
It's a militarized authority pointing a weapon at somebody who has no weapon and no defense.
The answer to this is, it really doesn't matter to them how they defend it. They choose their justification from whatever is at hand.
They'll say the angle is misleading, ignoring the fact that the militarized authority is still pointing his weapon. https://twitter.com/NelBaker/status/1287787085173338114?s=20
They'll say the angle is misleading, ignoring the fact that the militarized authority is still pointing his weapon. https://twitter.com/NelBaker/status/1287787085173338114?s=20
If it's proved the angle isn't misleading, they'll immediately switch to some other reason.
If backed all the way up, they resort to "both sides," ignoring that both sides aren't militarized authority.
The reason is immaterial to them. We shouldn't worry about their reasons.
If backed all the way up, they resort to "both sides," ignoring that both sides aren't militarized authority.
The reason is immaterial to them. We shouldn't worry about their reasons.
They have pre-determined that whenever they encounter militarized authority threatening person with harm, brutality, capture, or imminent death, they will always choose the authority.
The justification comes after.
This is what makes them authoritarian. It's not name-calling.
The justification comes after.
This is what makes them authoritarian. It's not name-calling.
They are authoritarian. They will always choose the authority.
To authoritarians, the violent aggressor is found on the left of this photo.
They'll tell you. They sure have been telling me.
To authoritarians, the violent aggressor is found on the left of this photo.
They'll tell you. They sure have been telling me.
To an authoritarian, a person becomes a violent aggressor simply by dint of being violently threatened or violently attacked by authority. The violence done to them accrues to them
To an authoritarian, no violent act by authority can ever be anything other than justified defense
To an authoritarian, no violent act by authority can ever be anything other than justified defense
We are dealing with authoritarians, empowered to the highest halls of power.
That's what the fight is.
They'll deny it, these authoritarians—up until the moment you ask them what they think of an empowered authority threatening an unarmed citizen.
Then they'll tell you.
That's what the fight is.
They'll deny it, these authoritarians—up until the moment you ask them what they think of an empowered authority threatening an unarmed citizen.
Then they'll tell you.
To justify the militarized authority pointing a weapon at somebody with no weapon, we must imagine an unrelated scene, then use it to transfer their actions to her. Ignoring that those in the unrelated scene are not authority, and threaten no lives. https://twitter.com/davidgaw/status/1288063311888764929?s=20
If you, unarmed, approach an arrest, a heavily armed authority has no choice but to level his weapon at you, and is justified in doing so, because no act any authority does, no matter how violent, can ever be violence.
Authoritarians will tell you. https://twitter.com/TGBED8v8/status/1288063146410872832?s=20
Authoritarians will tell you. https://twitter.com/TGBED8v8/status/1288063146410872832?s=20
The fact of the arrest justifies the arrest.
Even curiosity about the arrest justifies an immediate lethal threat.
Disobedience to authority justifies any reaction from authority.
If he pulled the trigger, every authoritarian would immediately convict her of her own murder.
Even curiosity about the arrest justifies an immediate lethal threat.
Disobedience to authority justifies any reaction from authority.
If he pulled the trigger, every authoritarian would immediately convict her of her own murder.
And the main thing protecting her, we well know, is that she was white.
Authoritarians know who the police exist to harm and harass and capture and kill. You can hear them tell you that too, if you listen.
The fight is authoritarianism. They're not being shy about it.
Authoritarians know who the police exist to harm and harass and capture and kill. You can hear them tell you that too, if you listen.
The fight is authoritarianism. They're not being shy about it.
Some of the dimmer authoritarians don't even bother with a justification; they just sip the authoritarianism as a concentrate directly from the syrup bag. https://twitter.com/RedVanHerring/status/1288074991947460608?s=20
Love holding cops, ostensibly officers of the peach, to the same standard as bank robbers, or to military patrolling hostile territory.
Love treating a failure to do this as a citizen's fault, not a systemic corruption of policing.
Authoritarians will tell you.
Love treating a failure to do this as a citizen's fault, not a systemic corruption of policing.
Authoritarians will tell you.
The "context" is a militarized authority pointing a weapon at somebody who has no weapon and no defense. What happened prior to the photograph is, we gave the cops military-grade funding, and then all the cops put on armor, and picked up weapons, and then the cop pointed the gun.
In the authoritarian mind, there exists no context for evidence of authoritarian violence other than exonerating context. If no exonerating context exists, the lack of exonerating context is offered as proof that the the evidence must be flawed.
lol "officers of the peach" a few tweets up
In the absence of exonerating context, the authoritarian mind will conjure some.
If even a hint of it proves true, it will serve to erase the reality of an authority pointing a weapon at a person with no weapon and no defense. If it's all disproved, he'll simply conjure more.
If even a hint of it proves true, it will serve to erase the reality of an authority pointing a weapon at a person with no weapon and no defense. If it's all disproved, he'll simply conjure more.
I want to be clear when I say they literally think the threatened parties are the aggressors. It's not a metaphor.
They are authoritarians, which means that they automatically side with authority, whatever the evidence, whatever the context.
They are authoritarians, which means that they automatically side with authority, whatever the evidence, whatever the context.
It absolutely does. The Republican Party is an authoritarian organization from the very top to the bottom, from the leader to the supporters.
It has no existence outside of authoritarianism anymore. That's what it is. https://twitter.com/Tsiser45/status/1288441672339271680?s=20
It has no existence outside of authoritarianism anymore. That's what it is. https://twitter.com/Tsiser45/status/1288441672339271680?s=20
Amazingly enough, when interrogated, his comment's motivation was revealed; offered not out of concern for the threatened woman, but out of a desire to justify his support for authoritarian violence.
They're authoritarians. They'll tell you.
They're authoritarians. They'll tell you.
