Path: nntp.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: Make It Make Sense
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2025 22:51:21 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 95
Message-ID: <103n799$dstm$1@dont-email.me>
References: <102tak5$2sq95$2@dont-email.me> <103mm5j$9ilu$1@dont-email.me> <103n414$crk6$1@dont-email.me> <103n5ek$cva6$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=fixed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2025 00:51:22 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="0750db602f8916b381c334fc8eabd664";
	logging-data="455606"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/ySPS6Ls0SPI/25MLyWVRn"
User-Agent: Usenapp/0.92.2/l for MacOS
Cancel-Lock: sha1:byPdnTqOiSv5qYAYfid/sxfcz28=

On Jun 27, 2025 at 3:20:03 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

> On 6/27/2025 5:55 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>  On Jun 27, 2025 at 10:59:15 AM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>  
>>>  On 6/26/2025 6:33 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>    On Jun 26, 2025 at 2:22:51 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>    
>>>>>    On 6/26/2025 3:36 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>      On Jun 17, 2025 at 8:08:53 PM PDT, "BTR1701" <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>>>      
>>>>>>>      https://ibb.co/RknV5xzr
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>      Misdemeanor charge + $2000 fine
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>      https://ibb.co/SD6RcDVp
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>      Man in Rhode Island was arrested after he allegedly made a skid
>>>>>>> mark on a
>>>>>>>      Pride Rainbow crosswalk with his car.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>      The city allowing a "pride" crosswalk in the first place is a 1A
>>>>>>>  violation.
>>>>>>>      If I asked for a permit to paint an anti-troon mural in the crosswalk
>>>>>>>  (or a
>>>>>>>      pro-gun/2A message), I bet they wouldn't give me one. The government is
>>>>>>>      allowing some political and social messages but not others based
>>>>>>> on their
>>>>>>>     own politics.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>      Where are the DOJ lawsuits against rainbow murals being painted on city
>>>>>>>      streets (to the exclusion of all other non-'progressive' messages) and
>>>>>>>  then
>>>>>>>      treated like religious icons?
>>>>>>      
>>>>>>      It's happened again.
>>>>>>      
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> https://video.twimg.com/amplify_video/1937932161073463297/vid/avc1/1080x1920/6o-22WzrJXx4UGjG.mp4
>>>>>>      
>>>>>>      Teenagers rip up some rainbow flags. Four are arrested and, according
>>>>>>  to the
>>>>>>      Atlanta PD, a manhunt-- yes, you read that right-- is on for the other
>>>>>>  two.
>>>>>>      
>>>>>>      My first question is, of course, arrested for what?
>>>>>>      
>>>>>>      Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989). The Supreme Court ruled that flag
>>>>>>      desecration is protected speech under the 1st Amendment: "It's both
>>>>>>  symbolic
>>>>>>      speech and political speech."
>>>>>>      
>>>>>>      If it's legal to desecrate the U.S. flag, it's legal to desecrate the
>>>>>>  flag of
>>>>>>      the Password People.
>>>>>>      
>>>>>>      "But wait," the apologists like FPP will say, "It's not legal to destroy
>>>>>>      something that doesn't belong to you. These kids took those flags
>>>>>> off the
>>>>>>      streetlight poles! That's a crime!"
>>>>>>      
>>>>>>      While this may be true, it's a crime that's strangely only enforced
>>>>>>  against
>>>>>>      people hostile to the 'progressive' Agenda:
>>>>>>      
>>>>>>      Anti-ICE protester pulls down a U.S. flag from a government pole and
>>>>>>  burns it:
>>>>>>      no consequences.
>>>>>>      
>>>>>>      Teenager pulls down a gay Rainbow Mafia flag from a government pole and
>>>>>>  rips
>>>>>>      it up: straight to prison.
>>>>> 
>>>>>    Afaics, FPP is present only in your recall.
>>>>    
>>>>    No, I've got a digital archive of all my posts. My newsreader auto-copies
>>>>    every post I make into a text document on my computer. That necessarily
>>>>  means
>>>>    I have a whole lot of FPP's claims saved as well, quoted in posts in
>>>> which I
>>>>    responded to him.
>>> 
>>>  But you're speaking as though he were here and speaking for himself.
>>  
>>  No, just pointing out arguments that have been used in the past to justify
>>  prosecuting some flag-burners but not others.
> 
> Better, then, to quote rather than paraphrase or extrapolate ...though 
> I'm not sure what you think invoking FPP at all adds to the discussion.

Because traditionally when I say, "the Left has said", or "opponents have
said", I'm immediately met with demands of "Who exactly says that?"