That’s a coincidence…or is it ?
I came in early specifically to post this….
There is, it turns out, a time and a place for running people over.
There’s an implied dare. The game being, “You won’t do what’s needed, despite our alarming and menacing behaviour, because you’re nicer than us, less vain, and not unhinged, and so we can dominate you and terrorise you, and break your stuff, for as long as we want, for shits and giggles.”
Well. I would suggest that the activists’ own actions render their wellbeing of very low importance.
Again, people who behave in this way cannot be relied on to observe normal moral boundaries. Are their victims, their chosen targets, those alarmed drivers and passengers, the ones just going about their business – are they supposed to assume that the mob of unhinged aggressors exulting in their capture and harassment will not press their advantage and do something worse?
“The masked, screaming people are only blocking our path and surrounding us.”
“Now they’re only smashing the windscreen and pulling at the door handles.”
“And now they’re only…”
At what point, precisely, would one’s alarm be considered sufficient?
“…that finding intruders in your home, or breaking into your home, intent on thievery and God knows what else, is somehow not in itself an obvious provocation. Or a basis for vigorous self-defence.”
4 Comments
Her answer is sorta true, but I doubt they were driving anywhere near the roads from Illinois to Austin.
Don’t be so sure. Coulda been a few out there, way of course. After all, DEMs aren’t exactly known for having a good sense of direction.
Live in NY and they tried gerrymandering twice now. It’s a trash concept. Win on merit.
That’s a coincidence…or is it ?
I came in early specifically to post this….
There is, it turns out, a time and a place for running people over.
There’s an implied dare. The game being, “You won’t do what’s needed, despite our alarming and menacing behaviour, because you’re nicer than us, less vain, and not unhinged, and so we can dominate you and terrorise you, and break your stuff, for as long as we want, for shits and giggles.”
Well. I would suggest that the activists’ own actions render their wellbeing of very low importance.
Again, people who behave in this way cannot be relied on to observe normal moral boundaries. Are their victims, their chosen targets, those alarmed drivers and passengers, the ones just going about their business – are they supposed to assume that the mob of unhinged aggressors exulting in their capture and harassment will not press their advantage and do something worse?
“The masked, screaming people are only blocking our path and surrounding us.”
“Now they’re only smashing the windscreen and pulling at the door handles.”
“And now they’re only…”
At what point, precisely, would one’s alarm be considered sufficient?
more here:
https://thompsonblog.co.uk/2025/08/reheated-112.html
Including the answer to:
“…that finding intruders in your home, or breaking into your home, intent on thievery and God knows what else, is somehow not in itself an obvious provocation. Or a basis for vigorous self-defence.”