Offside Chat Archives (2014-2021)

brightpilot6 said:Well, look, even if I were to strip away three-quarters of my brain and accept your premise—that ZDS and the white field have absolutely nothing to do with the Nazis—I could only bow to the stinginess of Jesus's teachings when seeing someone proudly posing with the symbols of a certain military unit on the holiest of Christian holidays.

It is precisely this dissonance, this gap between the true message of the Gospel and the ethno-nationalist caricature of religion being peddled by the loudest voices in the clergy, that makes much of this whole spectacle so repulsive to me. Aside from a few exceptions, of course.

Man, it's like some altar boy stays in the choir a little too long and instead of feeling ashamed of his roots, he just heads over for Spirit cooking by Marina.

brightpilot6 said:Well, look, even if I were to strip away three-quarters of my brain and accept your premise—that ZDS and the white field have absolutely nothing to do with the Nazis—I could only bow to the stinginess of Jesus's teachings when seeing someone proudly posing with the symbols of a certain military unit on the holiest of Christian holidays.

It is precisely this dissonance, this gap between the true message of the Gospel and the ethno-nationalist caricature of religion being peddled by the loudest voices in the clergy, that makes much of this whole spectacle so repulsive to me. Aside from a few exceptions, of course.

I don't see the issue here—here's the emblem for you. Whether they're linked to the Nazis or not, it’s the official symbol and salute of the HOS unit. 🤷 Again, interpret it however you want.

Who people choose to take photos with in their free time is their business, provided they aren't pushing politics while on duty. If Pupovac hangs out with symbols from the old regime in his downtime, I couldn't care less, as long as he isn't calling for expansionist borders. Same goes for Plenković posing with an "U" on his hat; as long as he isn't promoting it officially, it's his life. You clearly have a huge problem with something, though I have no idea what. You're acting overly critical while trying to play the liberal, yet you're still defending things that don't align with your views. Just let people live.

I've always been curious about why those HOS members included the ZDS on their emblem.
🤔
They’re definitely running some kind of operation...

Matthew Young35 said:Are you telling me they haven't even reported him yet?

She should have been filming how the state regulations were being bypassed, rather than just looking for a fight.
What the hell?
It was obvious from the start that they were going to bend the rules just to hold that Mass. And then she goes out and films the whole thing? What kind of blatant provocation is that?
If anyone was looking for a fight, it was the priest and those idiots who showed up to Mass. They were the ones instigating it. The journalist? She wasn't the problem; she was just there to film the whole display of arrogance—this blatant show of people acting like they’re somehow above the law.

So, let me get this straight... if you told me you were inviting five friends over for your birthday, would you actually back me up if I decided to break into your house just to film you and your buddies? You’re basically acting like you're above the law, completely ignoring the regulations set by the state...

Or do you think I should probably call the cops and report you instead?

Paul Martinez73 said:So, let me get this straight... if you told me you were inviting five friends over for your birthday, would you actually back me up if I decided to break into your house just to film you and your buddies? You’re basically acting like you're above the law, completely ignoring the regulations set by the state...

Or do you think I should probably call the cops and report you instead?

Give me a break... you know you're full of it.

We aren't talking about some private gathering here.

Matthew Young35 said:I've always been curious about why those HOS members included the ZDS on their emblem.
🤔
They’re definitely running some kind of operation...

Regardless of what anyone thinks about it, that's the official coat of arms. It’s perfectly legal as it stands. You can't exactly play both sides—invoking the state and its laws one minute, then trying to decide for yourself what's actually lawful the next... This whole thing is completely within the bounds of American law.

Matthew Young35 said:Give me a break... you know you're full of it.

We aren't talking about some private gathering here.

Where exactly am I wrong?

The best part of this whole mess, if you can call it that, is how Bozinovic handled it... he mentioned that the department already gave the Church authority a heads-up.

It’s a subtle way of suggesting that the Church authority actually holds more sway than the police.

Paul Martinez73 said:Regardless of what anyone thinks about it, that's the official coat of arms. It’s perfectly legal as it stands. You can't exactly play both sides—invoking the state and its laws one minute, then trying to decide for yourself what's actually lawful the next... This whole thing is completely within the bounds of American law.

It actually was banned, and I am old enough to remember when Budisa went to negotiate with the HOS members that Harmon had barred from the Starčević community center—back when we nearly slipped into a civil war among Americans right in the middle of Washington, D.C.
Perhaps you're a bit too young to recall those days.
And just because it isn't prohibited today doesn't mean we should be proud of it.

Paul Martinez73 said:Where exactly am I wrong?

Your very first letter was 'Z'...
Which means everything else follows suit.

Matthew Young35 said:It actually was banned, and I am old enough to remember when Budisa went to negotiate with the HOS members that Harmon had barred from the Starčević community center—back when we nearly slipped into a civil war among Americans right in the middle of Washington, D.C.
Perhaps you're a bit too young to recall those days.
And just because it isn't prohibited today doesn't mean we should be proud of it.

So, is it banned now or not?
It isn't. Thanks, discussion closed on that point.

Moving on—why does a journalist need permission to film a stadium, a shortcut, or anything else in this country? If they don't have accreditation or permission, security stops them, then the police step in, and everything they filmed becomes illegal. Yet, you think they can just wander into churches and start filming? Is someone there just breaking the law?

So, in your view, does a journalist automatically have permission if they know the law is being broken somewhere? Like, if Mamara is sitting at home counting the money he skimmed from the club, is he allowed to just burst into his house and film him? All in the "greater good"?

Or if crime happens inside a prison, is a journalist allowed to just barge in and record everything?

Paul Martinez73 said:Where exactly am I wrong?

You're off base because we're talking about a gathering of five people, whereas a church service could theoretically draw a crowd of a thousand since it's considered a public demonstration. The risk profiles aren't even in the same universe.

So, either you're being too dense to see the distinction, or you're just trolling—there isn't really a third option here. It’s likely the latter, which is incredibly grating.

It would be the exact same logic if your friend announced he was throwing a massive rager at the local Factory tomorrow and anyone could show up. In that scenario, wouldn't you feel obligated to report it and snap some photos if nobody else seemed to care? Because in this specific context, there's a much higher level of public interest involved.

Matthew Young35 said:Your very first letter was 'Z'...
Which means everything else follows suit.

brightpilot6, you think?

brightpilot6 said:You're off base because we're talking about a gathering of five people, whereas a church service could theoretically draw a crowd of a thousand since it's considered a public demonstration. The risk profiles aren't even in the same universe.

So, either you're being too dense to see the distinction, or you're just trolling—there isn't really a third option here. It’s likely the latter, which is incredibly grating.

It would be the exact same logic if your friend announced he was throwing a massive rager at the local Factory tomorrow and anyone could show up. In that scenario, wouldn't you feel obligated to report it and snap some photos if nobody else seemed to care? Because in this specific context, there's a much higher level of public interest involved.

Look, she was standing right outside that church the whole time and saw maybe fifteen people max. So it wasn't a hundred, and it definitely wasn't a thousand. There was zero risk. She could have just called the police and then put together a story if they failed to act. Wait it out and do what needs to be done.

I’d say the same about you—you're either trolling or just plain clueless, though I suspect you're just being stubborn.

If my friend announces a party at a nightclub, first of all, a journalist wouldn't even be allowed inside. Anything they filmed would leave them wide open to a lawsuit since they'd be filming a private party on private property. Does that click for you now? A journalist isn't the Department of Inspection; there is no Vested Interest here, so what are you even on about?

A journalist is like a sanitation worker; if they witness a crime, they're obligated to report it. They can do their job in a public space without bothering anyone, but once they cross those lines, they need permission and consent.

Paul Martinez73 said:Look, she was standing right outside that church the whole time and saw maybe fifteen people max. So it wasn't a hundred, and it definitely wasn't a thousand. There was zero risk. She could have just called the police and then put together a story if they failed to act. Wait it out and do what needs to be done.

I’d say the same about you—you're either trolling or just plain clueless, though I suspect you're just being stubborn.

If my friend announces a party at a nightclub, first of all, a journalist wouldn't even be allowed inside. Anything they filmed would leave them wide open to a lawsuit since they'd be filming a private party on private property. Does that click for you now? A journalist isn't the Department of Inspection; there is no Vested Interest here, so what are you even on about?

A journalist is like a sanitation worker; if they witness a crime, they're obligated to report it. They can do their job in a public space without bothering anyone, but once they cross those lines, they need permission and consent.

Man, oh man, even Ziza is out here saying there could theoretically be a thousand people in churches!

So, I already said it—you report it, and if you see that the authorities aren't doing anything about it, you start taking pictures. In that case, you go (i) through media pressure. It’s basically the standard operating procedure when you're dealing with a broken system like ours.

She was busy gathering evidence for a report to the 🤷

The cops showed up and just stood there waiting for the mouse to finish—so what are we actually talking about here? 🤣

If she hadn't called them in, nobody would ever know—privileged people in America can basically do whatever they want. Whether it's Mamica, Bandika, Horvatincica, or the Church... it’s all the same story.

Just give me a break.

But whatever, I guess COVID isn't really the main story anymore anyway.😍

Paul Martinez73 said:Look, she was standing right outside that church the whole time and saw maybe fifteen people max. So it wasn't a hundred, and it definitely wasn't a thousand. There was zero risk. She could have just called the police and then put together a story if they failed to act. Wait it out and do what needs to be done.

I’d say the same about you—you're either trolling or just plain clueless, though I suspect you're just being stubborn.

If my friend announces a party at a nightclub, first of all, a journalist wouldn't even be allowed inside. Anything they filmed would leave them wide open to a lawsuit since they'd be filming a private party on private property. Does that click for you now? A journalist isn't the Department of Inspection; there is no Vested Interest here, so what are you even on about?

A journalist is like a sanitation worker; if they witness a crime, they're obligated to report it. They can do their job in a public space without bothering anyone, but once they cross those lines, they need permission and consent.

😵
The entire country knew about this days before it happened.
Do you want to know how?
The damn priest announced it himself and invited everyone.
Why on earth would a reporter need to call the cops for something that's been common knowledge for days?
She was there to witness and film exactly what the priest promised and organized.

If my friend hosted a party at his Factory and reported it, first off, a journalist wouldn't even be allowed inside. Anything they filmed would leave them wide open to a lawsuit because they were filming a private party on private property. Is that clear enough for you? A journalist isn't the Department of Inspection; there is no Vested Interest here. What are you even on about?

If your friend actually did that—assuming he wasn't in the Republican Party and wasn't a priest—he’d be hauled in for questioning immediately after publishing, and he'd probably end up announcing the party was canceled right after.
☕

A journalist is like a sanitation worker; if they see a law being broken, they are obligated to report it. They can do their job in public spaces without bothering anyone, but once they cross those lines, they need permission and consent.

A journalist doesn't need to report something that the police obviously already know about—and they know because the lawbreaker himself announced it.
In this case, the journalist is there to show the public how much the Church couldn't care less about regulations and how they believe they are above the law.
A job well done.

brightpilot6 said:So, I already said it—you report it, and if you see that the authorities aren't doing anything about it, you start taking pictures. In that case, you go (i) through media pressure. It’s basically the standard operating procedure when you're dealing with a broken system like ours.

So you're basically advocating for breaking the law here?
Look, you can report things, take photos, or film people coming in and out of a church, and if the police won't act, sure, write a killer exposé about it. You can even bug the priest after service or give him a call. But you cannot just barge onto private property, regardless of what you think your reasoning is. Even the cops aren't allowed to do that.

"Entering private property can result in a civil trespass lawsuit or in criminal charges. To trespass means you’ve entered the property without consent, or you’ve refused to leave when asked. In most states, it’s fine to approach a person’s home or business to ask the owner or occupant whether she will, for example, agree to be interviewed. But once she refuses or asks you to leave, remaining there is a trespass. You also can’t enter private property simply because you want to gather news there (e.g., to capture photos or video)."