Because this is 100% what this guy did. You said that it didn’t had anything with racist yet BLM protest seem to be the only one where far right people decide to play police with a gun in order to ‘‘protect’’ the people.
It isn’t hard to understand that any armed white people that confront the movement were clearly racist and wouldn’t have done a since thing if it was a movement for white people even if if were to be 10 time more violent.
My post do make sense.
Last year there were protests in Michigan against Governor Whitmer, a white woman. Militias protested outside the capitol against her policies, and many of those protesters were armed. That had nothing to do with BLM. This is one example proving you wrong.
2 completely different situation that prove that you just don’t get it. Nobody ever said that militias would never fight against white people if they disagreed.
But did they ever ‘‘protect’’ us against other violent protest that wasn’t for black people? Where were they when the capitol was attacked? Oh right they were part of it…
BLM incident following by the capitol incident is enough to debunk any argument of people like you. You just don’t get to ‘‘protect’’ the people by harming them when they are against you only to close the eye on worst thing which you agree on.
There is always intolerant people that think they are in the right but which just look awefull years later. All of what you said is part of it.
You did.
You’re moving the goalpost.
Not a BLM protest.
Which is the whole problem in Kyle Rittenhouse being prosecuted.
So you read “nearly all of it”. I think you missed a few parts.
Did you read my arguments about Velen and Turalyon?
Did you read my arguments about Yrel’s group and their history with AU Grom and the Iron Horde?
Did you read my arguments stating the Scarlet Crusade is extinct but acknowledging the breakaway group the Scarlet Onslaught and the copycat group the Scarlet Brotherhood still exist?
Did you read my arguments about how Xe’ra’s supposedly a cosmic threat… yet apparently can get one-shotted by a fel junkie?
Did you read my arguments about power levels and retcons?
None of that has anything to do with a supposed perceived value judgment placed on the Light as Christianity; what makes you think otherwise?
I disapprove of the media’s treatment of Islam (not the negative discrimination nor the positive discrimination), but I don’t control the media.
My, my, what a loaded question (pun not intended), Renautus. I only know bits and pieces about that situation.
On one hand, the people Kyle shot had guns too and threatened and attacked him first, including making death threats and pointing their guns at Kyle first (if they’re were protestors, why are protestors carrying guns?)
On the other hand, why was he there anyway? If he knew about the protests and was worried it could degenerate into a riot (as did happen several times during the George Floyd Protests and Riots), that might explain why Kyle had a gun, but I still don’t know why he was in the area.
Do you believe the commandment, “Thou shalt not kill?” It’s a pretty straightforward question. It’s an extension of Micah’s question about things we agree are universally evil.
The commandment is “You shall not murder”. To kill someone is not the same as murdering them. Do you also oppose capital punishment? If those people had killed Kyle, would you oppose that?
You all are going to get this thread locked.
…which might be for the best.
‘sin’ to you is suddenly arbitrary…
Good point, let’s get this thread back on topic. Bu if they get it locked, I can just make a new thread with the original topic.
And your refusal to answer my questions is telling. I don’t know enough about the Kyle Rittenhouse situation to jump to conclusions. I have seen evidence for Kyle’s innocence and for Kyle’s guilt, though the former outweighs the latter.
That’s why I like Martin Luther King Jr’s approach. I care about fair treatment for all races - while it shouldn’t matter, I’m also half-black myself.
I remember reading about how MLK stopped the March in Washington when some of the people marching started vandalizing and looting. The rioters giving the protestors a bad name should have taken a leaf from MLK’s book. MLK’s refusal to use violence was also a point of contention between him and Malcom X, who was open to using violence.
Yes, to all of the above.
Correct, it doesn’t. But it’s also all artificial reductionism. It can be boiled down to “this entire concept is bad, because this tangentially-related thing is bad”. It’s all filler to the real argument; why a “Light Crusade” expansion is bad. None of those specific things are necessarily even part of a hypothetical “Light Crusade” expansion, so pointing out the flaws you percieve in them is irrelevant to that argument except in the commonality in those percieved flaws.
As an asside, another reason people might be percieving your opposition as based on personal religious values? The moment I mentioned from an outside perspective it does kinda come across that way, complete with an acknowledgement that it might not even be the case that this is a personal moralistic issue?
You took it as an attack and a blanket claim that it must be a personal moralistic issue.
Of the two of us, I think the only one employing reductionism here is you, Alynsa. It sounds like you’re trying to reduce my points about the lore and writing to being based on making a parallel between the Light and my real-life beliefs.
If we have a “Light Crusade” expansion, those characters and aspects I listed will play a part, so they are not irrelevant to the argument.
That would be like if someone made the false hypothecial claim that everyone who supports this storyline is a religion-hating atheist, which is not, and would not be, true either.
Perhaps I was wrong, and you weren’t attacking me or making a blanket claim. If I’m wrong, I apologize. If that is the case, I guess I jumped to conclusions because other people in this thread have resorted to personal attacks and blanket claims.
Well, it only feels that way because frankly, you’ve chosen to ignore context in favor of offense. As a third reminder, I was pretty clear initially that I was neither stating you are or aren’t biased based on religious views, only that I could see why the perception you are might exist.
This overblown defensiveness is very telling though.
You’re hypothesizing, but pretending you’re not.
Three years ago, we’d all expect the death expansion to involve the Forsaken. Some shamanistic ancestor worship. Maybe even something about priests and paladins. Everything in the game certainly suggested either some or all of those things closely associated with death and the afterlife would play a role in an expansion about death and the afterlife.
Those hypothesies would have been very wrong.
I’d go on about an expansion about fighting the Legion ignoring a race defined by Legion manipulation, or a time travel expansion that has only a single Bronze Dragon in it, that is killed off-screen. Hell, I could go off about how even the method of the Legion invasion (that, as MoP said, they were already on the way instead of relying timey-wimey extra Gul’dans to happen) shouldn’t have been assumed in spite of the evidence. But you get the point, I hope.
A Light Crusade expansion will have only one thing for certain; the Light will be in it. History tells us clearly not to expect more than that.
Except nobody is claiming EVERYONE religious is taking exception to a Light Crusade expansion. What do you think you’re trying to say here?
Only one person he shot had a gun, the one before that hit him in the head with a skateboard. The incident started when someone across the street shot a pistol, which spooked Kyle and is when Michael Rosenbaum rushed Kyle.
Even if I defend him, he shouldn’t have been there. Was a really dumb thing to go there and a bad parenting move to let your child go into such a situation. It’s also taken attention away from Jacob Blake, more people now know about this situation instead of what caused it in the first place.
Being offended and getting defensive came from my past experiences on these forums dealing with people making veiled or overt jabs.
I think Shadowlands not involving the Forsaken beyond Sylvanas, Forsaken PCs and a couple of cameos from Calia was a huge missed opportunity. But we still had the aforementioned Forsaken characters play a part.
It sounds like you’re just trying to encourage doubt of my points by saying “Turalyon and all those others may not be part of it.” Especially since the devs themselves have said in interviews Yrel and her group will return.
I was saying that you claiming I only oppose this because of my Christian faith is as wrong as claiming everyone who supports this expansion is a religion-hating atheist.
You seem to think a lot of things I say sound like something I’m not saying. For instance, this:
Never said that either.
If you have a habit of making bold, spurious claims as to what other people actually say, that might explain why you’re having these “past experiences on these forums”.
Unless you think you are everyone with Christian faith, then your analogy still isn’t what you think it is here.
And they did not give further context than that. At all. You’re inferring that Yrel will return as some fanatical leader of an army that will try to forcefully convert everyone around her (understandable, given that was what she was up to last time we saw her). But you’re also inferring based on this one specific example, which could just as easily be a scenario in some future time travel redux expansion where we check in on her and get the other side of the story (ala Legion’s Black Temple anti-raid where we played Illidan), that all these other things will not only be involved, but what their role will also be.
So no, I’m not trying to encourage doubt of your points. I’m making a reasonable effort to remind you that your certainties are not at all certain and based purely on your own hypotheticals.
Thank you for clarifying. I really hope what you’re saying does come to pass, but given what the loudest part of the fanbase is clamoring for and the “quality” of writing we’ve seen from Blizzard such as that poorly-written one-sided Mag’har recruitment scenario, I doubt it.
By the way, when I said “…the devs themselves have said in interviews Yrel and her group will return.” Do you know which interviews I’m talking about?
Thank you for clarifying Evelysaa. The fact that someone actually assaulted him first, and that person had a gun themselves looks like further evidence for Kyle’s innocence. Why is a protestor (maybe I should say “protestor”) carrying a gun anyway?
I agree with you that it looks like he shouldn’t have been there; was any explanation given for why Kyle was there?
Other problems I think are biased news media coverage and censorship perverting the course of justice in the Rittenhouse trial plus that angry leftist mob outside the courthouse; I strongly suspect the jury wants to acquit Kyle but fears ideologue vigilante reprisals and the wrath of cancel culture for doing so.
I also agree there needs to be more focus on Jacob Blake.
See, this is what I’m talking about right here, that unnecessary part I bolded for you. Statements like this are why it could come across (COULD COME ACROSS WHICH IS NOT AN ACCUSATION FYI) like your issue is more personal religious bias.
Because how do you “both sides” forced religious conversion? Should Blizzard have written in an extra step in the scenario where we see that sometimes, people are happy to be forcefully converted to a new religion?
Because when half of your condemnation of that scenario is about how we didn’t see it from the other side’s perspective, the religion’s side, it certainly comes across this way.
Yeah probably.
He and a group of others wanted to defend a car dealership which had been vandalized two nights in a row. The business owner’s sons claim that they never asked for help with that but other witnesses have stated the opposite. Kyle had left the dealership and tried to return to it but was blocked off by a police barricade, so he tried going to a different business by himself.
Mainstream news has definitely been biased in this case. The experts they’ve interviewed have been saying opposite of what lawyers on YouTube have been saying. The protestors outside the courthouse haven’t been too bad, only two people have been arrested so far. There were rumors that both sides shared a pizza earlier today. It does look like that most of the jury wants to acquit but a few of the jurors are holding back due to fear of backlash.
Your use of parsing looks like quote-mining. This is another reason I’ve been leery.
You “both sides” it when the side doing the forcible conversions has a history being oppressed by the side they’re now trying to convert, the side they’re trying to convert is lead by the war criminal responsible for that oppression and the story acknowledges that… unlike what we got in the scenario. Plus, both sides believe that the Light exists and has power (the fact that we also don’t see any forcible conversions happen doesn’t do the one-sidedness any favors).
Here’s one of the interviews I was referring to;