HorrorMovieFans.com

Seb admits it.

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:Your description of the way I talk about race also doesn't even mention the word "white". So where does the white guilt come from?

Oh, from you.

It comes from you, having the white guilts.

Good to know you're more comfortable calling me a liar than taking my word on something. Peak disrespect,

Fine, you don't have white guilt. Golly. So defensive aboot it.

Headhunter wrote:

Reign in Blood wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Reign in Blood wrote:

zombie wrote:

Reign in Blood wrote:

zombie wrote:

Reign in Blood wrote:

zombie wrote:

Reign in Blood wrote:

Headhunter wrote:So far in all his disgusting smearing, Foo has yet to make a case that they weren't innocent victims. He's trying really hard but he just can't get there.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vq_k0yqq88

now we're gonna use (fictional) religious extremists as the example to follow?

Oh come on, you know that was good for the whole victims vs. murderer etc. shit.

yeah, it was a pretty good jab.

It wasn't meant as a jab, but there is nuance and gray to this shit.

agreed. i think that head and seb are pretty nuanced with their arguments.

When I said gray I was talking about the quote box.

Innocence doesn't exist in a vacuum. So what is the crime we're retroactively putting him on trial for by justifying his killing?

I agree with Tigg, this cop for Castile should have got manslaughter.

To me that's such a "ldo" I think pretty much everyone here concurs with that except Foo, who probably thinks the cop should have kept his job and gotten a raise.

Actually, Foo thinks:

- Castile and his girlfriend are probably pieces of shit who society would be better without
- the cop probably overreacted or made assumptionss job , or both
- this should have gone to trial
- the jury probably got it right
- the cop's job should have been reviewed
- firing him was probably right
- Castile did not deserve to die based on what I know, but he also put himself in a bad position
- the cop does not deserve to go to jail

There are many nuances that liberals cannot seem to understand. Among them is that a law enforcement officer is put into a unique situation. The burden of proof in a criminal case was clearly not met. Sometimes bad things happen, but there is no crime.

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:Your description of the way I talk about race also doesn't even mention the word "white". So where does the white guilt come from?

Oh, from you.

It comes from you, having the white guilts.

Good to know you're more comfortable calling me a liar than taking my word on something. Peak disrespect,

Fine, you don't have white guilt. Golly. So defensive.

Just curious, do you really not find it ridiculous that I would tell you things only I would 100% know and you feel comfortable enough to call me a liar and pretend you know better based on some really flimsy assumptions about the way I discuss race that never even mentions white guilt? Think about how stupid this really sounds from my point of view. Yeah.

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:Your description of the way I talk about race also doesn't even mention the word "white". So where does the white guilt come from?

Oh, from you.

It comes from you, having the white guilts.

Good to know you're more comfortable calling me a liar than taking my word on something. Peak disrespect,

Fine, you don't have white guilt. Golly. So defensive.

Just curious, do you really not find it ridiculous that I would tell you things only I would 100% know and you feel comfortable enough to call me a liar and pretend you know better based on some really flimsy assumptions about the way I discuss race that never even mentions white guilt? Think about how stupid this really sounds from my point of view. Yeah.

You can have it and not know it. You can have it and not want to admit it. Lots of other factors than just "u call me liar bro?"

Jason wrote:Seb admits it.

Just reading up what it means, it suggests the assertion that White People should consider the historic racism and atrocities of the past in their reconciliation of the present. Which is exactly what I talk about when I talk about the blatant institutional racism present in the US and how it is visibly harder to be a black man than a white man in the US, now, and that this ties through to the difficult history of racism and slavery in the US, and the slow but painful movement towards equality. On that scale, I certainly fall more towards the "White people need to make amends" category than the "it's all good" category.

In this argument about cops, though, I have deliberately avoided that topic altogether as I don't think that was the central premise here.

Foo wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Reign in Blood wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Reign in Blood wrote:

zombie wrote:

Reign in Blood wrote:

zombie wrote:

Reign in Blood wrote:

zombie wrote:

Reign in Blood wrote:

Headhunter wrote:So far in all his disgusting smearing, Foo has yet to make a case that they weren't innocent victims. He's trying really hard but he just can't get there.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vq_k0yqq88

now we're gonna use (fictional) religious extremists as the example to follow?

Oh come on, you know that was good for the whole victims vs. murderer etc. shit.

yeah, it was a pretty good jab.

It wasn't meant as a jab, but there is nuance and gray to this shit.

agreed. i think that head and seb are pretty nuanced with their arguments.

When I said gray I was talking about the quote box.

Innocence doesn't exist in a vacuum. So what is the crime we're retroactively putting him on trial for by justifying his killing?

I agree with Tigg, this cop for Castile should have got manslaughter.

To me that's such a "ldo" I think pretty much everyone here concurs with that except Foo, who probably thinks the cop should have kept his job and gotten a raise.

Actually, Foo thinks:

- Castile and his girlfriend are probably pieces of shit who society would be better without
- the cop probably overreacted or made assumptionss job , or both
- this should have gone to trial
- the jury probably got it right
- the cop's job should have been reviewed
- firing him was probably right
- Castile did not deserve to die based on what I know, but he also put himself in a bad position
- the cop does not deserve to go to jail

There are many nuances that liberals cannot seem to understand. Among them is that a law enforcement officer is put into a unique situation. The burden of proof in a criminal case was clearly not met. Sometimes bad things happen, but there is no crime.

But the most important part for you is to smear the victim. Telling.

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:Your description of the way I talk about race also doesn't even mention the word "white". So where does the white guilt come from?

Oh, from you.

It comes from you, having the white guilts.

Good to know you're more comfortable calling me a liar than taking my word on something. Peak disrespect,

Fine, you don't have white guilt. Golly. So defensive.

Just curious, do you really not find it ridiculous that I would tell you things only I would 100% know and you feel comfortable enough to call me a liar and pretend you know better based on some really flimsy assumptions about the way I discuss race that never even mentions white guilt? Think about how stupid this really sounds from my point of view. Yeah.

You can have it and not know it. You can have it and not want to admit it. Lots of other factors than just "u call me liar bro?"

Pretty sure you're confusing the concept of white guilt with Herpes.

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:Your description of the way I talk about race also doesn't even mention the word "white". So where does the white guilt come from?

Oh, from you.

It comes from you, having the white guilts.

Good to know you're more comfortable calling me a liar than taking my word on something. Peak disrespect,

Fine, you don't have white guilt. Golly. So defensive.

Just curious, do you really not find it ridiculous that I would tell you things only I would 100% know and you feel comfortable enough to call me a liar and pretend you know better based on some really flimsy assumptions about the way I discuss race that never even mentions white guilt? Think about how stupid this really sounds from my point of view. Yeah.

You can have it and not know it. You can have it and not want to admit it. Lots of other factors than just "u call me liar bro?"

Well I appreciate your concern Jason, but I know myself pretty wel and much better than you do. Given you haven't made a single point yet connecting white guilt to anything I discuss on here, sounds like your theory was just complete garbage and you really were the only one thinking about it all along.

showa58taro wrote:

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Jason wrote:

Headhunter wrote:Your description of the way I talk about race also doesn't even mention the word "white". So where does the white guilt come from?

Oh, from you.

It comes from you, having the white guilts.

Good to know you're more comfortable calling me a liar than taking my word on something. Peak disrespect,

Fine, you don't have white guilt. Golly. So defensive.

Just curious, do you really not find it ridiculous that I would tell you things only I would 100% know and you feel comfortable enough to call me a liar and pretend you know better based on some really flimsy assumptions about the way I discuss race that never even mentions white guilt? Think about how stupid this really sounds from my point of view. Yeah.

You can have it and not know it. You can have it and not want to admit it. Lots of other factors than just "u call me liar bro?"

Pretty sure you're confusing the concept of white guilt with Herpes.

Syphilis?

Yeah you'd have to be pretty fucking stupid to not know if you have "white guilt" or not. Kind of a lot of giveaways there...

Headhunter wrote:

Foo wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Reign in Blood wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Reign in Blood wrote:

zombie wrote:

Reign in Blood wrote:

zombie wrote:

Reign in Blood wrote:

zombie wrote:

Reign in Blood wrote:

Headhunter wrote:So far in all his disgusting smearing, Foo has yet to make a case that they weren't innocent victims. He's trying really hard but he just can't get there.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vq_k0yqq88

now we're gonna use (fictional) religious extremists as the example to follow?

Oh come on, you know that was good for the whole victims vs. murderer etc. shit.

yeah, it was a pretty good jab.

It wasn't meant as a jab, but there is nuance and gray to this shit.

agreed. i think that head and seb are pretty nuanced with their arguments.

When I said gray I was talking about the quote box.

Innocence doesn't exist in a vacuum. So what is the crime we're retroactively putting him on trial for by justifying his killing?

I agree with Tigg, this cop for Castile should have got manslaughter.

To me that's such a "ldo" I think pretty much everyone here concurs with that except Foo, who probably thinks the cop should have kept his job and gotten a raise.

Actually, Foo thinks:

- Castile and his girlfriend are probably pieces of shit who society would be better without
- the cop probably overreacted or made assumptionss job , or both
- this should have gone to trial
- the jury probably got it right
- the cop's job should have been reviewed
- firing him was probably right
- Castile did not deserve to die based on what I know, but he also put himself in a bad position
- the cop does not deserve to go to jail

There are many nuances that liberals cannot seem to understand. Among them is that a law enforcement officer is put into a unique situation. The burden of proof in a criminal case was clearly not met. Sometimes bad things happen, but there is no crime.

But the most important part for you is to smear the victim. Telling.

His being dead doesn't change the fact that he was a piece of shit.

Foo wrote: There are many nuances that liberals cannot seem to understand. Among them is that a law enforcement officer is put into a unique situation. The burden of proof in a criminal case was clearly not met. Sometimes bad things happen, but there is no crime.

when i look at a situation like this, i try to put myself in the shoes of both the cop and the victim. try to see how i would react with that pressure and such. it's the place to start anyways. there are things to consider beyond just yourself in the situation. but yeah. to say that liberals don't get the nuance is just another way to try to dismiss people when they disagree with you.

Foo wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Foo wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Reign in Blood wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Reign in Blood wrote:

zombie wrote:

Reign in Blood wrote:

zombie wrote:

Reign in Blood wrote:

zombie wrote:

Reign in Blood wrote:

Headhunter wrote:So far in all his disgusting smearing, Foo has yet to make a case that they weren't innocent victims. He's trying really hard but he just can't get there.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vq_k0yqq88

now we're gonna use (fictional) religious extremists as the example to follow?

Oh come on, you know that was good for the whole victims vs. murderer etc. shit.

yeah, it was a pretty good jab.

It wasn't meant as a jab, but there is nuance and gray to this shit.

agreed. i think that head and seb are pretty nuanced with their arguments.

When I said gray I was talking about the quote box.

Innocence doesn't exist in a vacuum. So what is the crime we're retroactively putting him on trial for by justifying his killing?

I agree with Tigg, this cop for Castile should have got manslaughter.

To me that's such a "ldo" I think pretty much everyone here concurs with that except Foo, who probably thinks the cop should have kept his job and gotten a raise.

Actually, Foo thinks:

- Castile and his girlfriend are probably pieces of shit who society would be better without
- the cop probably overreacted or made assumptionss job , or both
- this should have gone to trial
- the jury probably got it right
- the cop's job should have been reviewed
- firing him was probably right
- Castile did not deserve to die based on what I know, but he also put himself in a bad position
- the cop does not deserve to go to jail

There are many nuances that liberals cannot seem to understand. Among them is that a law enforcement officer is put into a unique situation. The burden of proof in a criminal case was clearly not met. Sometimes bad things happen, but there is no crime.

But the most important part for you is to smear the victim. Telling.

His being dead doesn't change the fact that he was a piece of shit.

No criminal record. Beloved at the school he worked for. Your judgments are not good here.

I'm slightly tickled that Mr. Hyperbole is demanding nuance. This might be the first time Foo has looked at a political issue with nuance in years. He openly detests nuance about 99% of the time.

Jason wrote: You can have it and not know it. You can have it and not want to admit it. Lots of other factors than just "u call me liar bro?"

what are the warning signs? what are the symptoms?

zombie wrote:

Jason wrote: You can have it and not know it. You can have it and not want to admit it. Lots of other factors than just "u call me liar bro?"

what are the warning signs? what are the symptoms?

I think bringing it up out of the blue when nobody else on the forum thinks about it should be considered a warning sign.

What do you think of Castile driving while getting high with a child in the car?

He was arrested 22 times...

zombie wrote:

Jason wrote: You can have it and not know it. You can have it and not want to admit it. Lots of other factors than just "u call me liar bro?"

what are the warning signs? what are the symptoms?

If you're showing signs of Head's pattern of anti-white, liberal weirdness than that is a textbook symptom.

Foo wrote:What do you think of Castile driving while getting high with a child in the car?

He was arrested 22 times...

Marijuana is good for you, though. He smokes marijuana to clear his head so he can take better care of his child.