Evidence from two eyewitnesses is that Brown was murdered.
They recanted.
Witness 22 said she saw Wilson kill Brown in cold blood. She admitted later that she wasn't in the area and was just passing along information her boyfriend told her. During grand jury testimony, she admitted "I just felt like I want to be part of something... I didn't see what I told the FBI what I saw." One of the other witnesses who said Wilson murdered Brown admitted in a phone call that he didn't see the incident at all. Witness 35 said Brown was "on his knees" when Wilson shot him in the head, despite forensic evidence indicating otherwise. Witness 35 admitted in his grand jury testimony that he made that part up. Witness 37 said Brown was shot in the chest at the vehicle, then started giving contradictory recounts, eventually saying "If none of my stuff is making any sense, like why do y'all keep contacting me?"
I think the difference is, no one expects the Enquirer to be accurate. I mean, for fuck's sake, they've had stories about Bigfoot and Elvis meeting.
In the National Enquirer? Or Weekly World News? The Enquirer is a celebrity gossip tabloid, but purports to be real. They've won some lawsuits, lost others, but they're not a Bigfoot/Elvis publication. Their specialty is he said/she said stories that are difficult to prove or disprove.
Just like PETA they're a bit over the top and often biased and unfair, but they're the only way society can move forward. Middle-of-the-road opinions don't bring change.
Moderate animal advocacy groups have brought some change. Most reasonable people, and everyone not already sympathetic, completely ignore PETA, the ALF, etcetc.
The riots in Ferguson have done nothing other than convince most people that there are some fucked up violent people who traveled to that city to burn, loot, and attack police.
Occupy Wall Street had no effect, NONE, other than spawn a bunch of homeless-like camps that everyone who didn't live in them hated. Find Barney Frank's interview on NPR for why he knew Occupy would be a total failure after he visited a few rallies.
The looney fringe does not drive societal change, because only the moderates are listened to by moderates or people from the other side. Violent radicals engender support for law enforcement to stop their violence, and the message gets lost because most people do not like such violence and city shutdowns, regardless of the cause. The British listened to Ghandi because he was more appealing to deal with than the terrorists bombing and butchering at the time. MLK got far more support in the US, and far more done, than the especially racist Nation of Islam ever did, or the Black Panthers.
On a side note? What is far -right? Is it the neo-nazis or free-market, pro-gay marriage libertarian outfits? What is the definition of far - right? Or is it simply - they disagree therefore they are far right?
It's a side note, but it's the more interesting one, IMO.:-D I think it comes down to different definitions of conservative. Whether it's "preserving the traditional way of things," or "preserving freedom," both considered right-wing but they can also be at odds.
Take the traditional conservative Christian evangelical. They wish to preserve the traditional morality of society, at least one where their morals were considered the standard, the default, the enforced. This is considered "conservative," because they wish to conserve their way of life in society, and reject societal changes which threaten their interpretation of The Good Book.
Then you have the Libertarian wing, or perhaps those a bit further to the right of the Libertarian Party. They believe in freedom from government interference, freedom to act according to their conscience. Freedom to do what they want with their own property. They are conservative because they don't feel like someone a thousand miles away has the right to, say, dictate water policy in their state. Or determine if they can cut down trees on their property. Or without property from the market at all. Or tell them who they're required to buy from or sell to. That is conservative in the more "you can't make my decisions for me" vein.
Sometimes those two groups come together for common purpose, whether it's against laws requiring the removal of religious symbols from public grounds, disagreement with the concept of "hate crimes," disagreement with affirmative action or quotas, encouraging tax cuts, etc. Even then they can be somewhat strange bedfellows, and their alliance may be one of convenience -- dislike of central authority being the thing that binds them together.
But often the groups might be at odds. Your freedom-loving libertarian might find especially distasteful sex laws governing behavior between consenting adults, such as anti-sodomy laws. Your typical conservative evangelical has no problem with those laws, nor would they have a problem with government promotion of Christianity, something a libertarian might find distasteful. The libertarian might consider anathema the idea of a draft, or of American forces sent to fight a war in another country that hadn't attacked us. Both might find common ground in the notion that the -federal- government should not be the ones to make mandates, but that the local government is constitutionally free to. IE, 'you run your town the way you want to, we'll run ours the way we want to.'
IE, it's legal for Trump's relatives to serve on his transition team, just not his cabinet. It would also be legal for them to serve as "advisers," I believe.
Maybe, just maybe, it would be useful to reconsider these incidents with the point of view that it's *never* right for a police officer to kill a person.
I guess it depends on what we mean by 'right.' I don't think it's something that should be 'celebrated,' because I don't celebrate the ending of a life, but it is often justified. The police are neither indentured servants nor are they slaves, and they are people who have just as much of a right to life and to self-defense as anyone else does. That often goes missing in these various BLM-related discussions.
"Hands up, don't shoot" came from a few witnesses, all of whom have recanted their testimony or been found to be lying. Every other witness testified that Brown did not have his hands up or was surrendering. It WAS a cause championed by Al Sharpton, who always wades in without knowing what he's talking about.
Forensic evidence at the scene is consistent with Officer Wilson retreating backwards. The county autopsy found gunshot wounds in Brown's arm, coming from both the front and the back, and said nothing about 'defensive posture.' It's entirely consistent with eyewitness accounts. The independent autopsy was done after evidence had been removed from the body and it had been washed and embalmed, and admitted it would be unable to forensically reconstruct the scene. The federal autopsy ordered by Eric Holder was consistent with the previous two.
I would agree with a protester who said "Even if you don't find that it's true, it's a valid rallying cry... it's just a metaphor." That's fine. And there certainly HAVE been unarmed people shot by nervous police who were making no threatening gestures. Let's just not pretend this was the case was Michael Brown.
No he didn't. And even if he had it wouldn't mean anything. You can't disprove a pattern by claiming (truthfully or not) that one example doesn't fit the pattern. You may have had a point if there wasn't Tamir Rice (cop acquitted), If the NRA had even MENTIONED Philando Castile, if there was no Eric Garner, of if the list of unarmed black men killed by US police this year alone was not currently at 1039 - that's an average of more than 3 a day, every day.
The parent poster didn't mention Tamir Rice, Eric Garner, etcetc. What he was discrediting was Michael Brown as a poster child as various BLM groups have done. Those groups have a lot of good points about policing in America, but you cannot pick a worse headliner for your cause than Michael Brown.
Downtime, DDoS, Censorship Usenet is the perfect solution
Usenet is more vulnerable to some of those problems. Large companies have the resources to fight DDoS attacks (usually) and Usenet is more vulnerable to DDoS attacks than regular websites (though not in the way you might think). The problem is that your totally unrestricted, no-rules, no filtered Usenet is quite vulnerable to the thing that killed Usenet for most people 15 years ago -- relentless, non-stop spam that bypasses filters, comes from way too many sources to filter out with IP bans, and that drowns out everything else. The onus would be on the end user to filter and honestly aside from sysadminy types who have yet to grow out of their "I can waste tons of time on this" phase, most won't be bothered. You can fix that with a moderated board, but at that point you're stuck with most of the problems the old website had and you don't really gain anything.
[The New York Times] demonized Trump from start to finish
Trump demonized Trump from the very beginning -- it's not 'demonizing' to report on his public statements. And the MSM never stopped harping on Hillary and her stupid email story either. It's a manufactured scandal that could have died, but the main stream media never allowed it to, no matter how much you claim they were "in the tank" for Hillary.
It reminds me of the panic in the 80s where various medics and social workers (often Christian) decided that Satanic rituals involving all that stuff was going on and lots of families' lives were ruined until it was discovered that the allegations were nonsense
I'm old enough to remember the "satanic ritual abuse" hoax from the 1980s and that's immediately what I thought of when this Pizzagate nonsense came up.
So you're saying that some guy didn't go on the pizzagate subreddit and claim to have hacked "we the pizza"'s website and post cp as proof? Even the mods of pizzagate said it happened.
That just means the mods of Pizzagate are part of the corruption. They're in on it!
Sure, anytime you don't like someone's politics, just ban them for "harassment" and people like serviscope_minor will tell everyone "it's a good reason", and just assume you're telling the truth (oh, someone may need to claim harassment every so often as well). It's very convenient.
Calling in death threats against employees and standing outside the joint slandering the owner, employees, and patrons because of a bullshit Internet meme isn't cool, and definitely counts as verified, documented harassment.
Well there's a problem right there. Don't go to those shitholes, problem solved.
You really should research this yourself and ask yourself why there is a boatload of evidence
This is usually code for "people have checked out the evidence, found that it's nonsense and unsupported, but the tinfoil-hatters are SUPER-CONVINCED that there's something there, and they'll conflate actual problems (DDOSing of wikileaks, etc) with imaginary ones (#pizzagate) and in the process, try to put the imaginary ones on the same footing with real problems.
I would also like to see Proof Of Life on Julian Assange
I would like to see proof that you have a penis, and my belief that you don't have one is just as valid as your counter-assertion that you do, and to disprove me you are obligated to post photographic evidence, because clearly everyone with better things to do don't need to spend their time dancing to the tune of the Internet's crazy paranoids.
Nobody really knows, but practical, full capability cloning seems to be sharing the "progress" list with cold fusion and artificial intelligence, always at least 5 to 10 years away from serious application.
Because it doesn't seem financially viable. Ok, so... you cloned Dolly. So what? What will it actually GET you? Cloning a creature is an order of magnitude more expensive than naturally birthing one from two parents, so the question is.. why would we want to? Why would we care?
It's the difference between theoretical science and applied science. The theoretical science part has certainly leaped ahead of applied science, which has somewhat shrugged because we don't see the benefits to cloning yet. Everything is going to be very expensive because you have experts working on the clone and it takes a lot of resources, and they have to be paid. Where does the money come from? Why should it be funded? The only semi-plausible commercial use I can think of is organ-cloning, and that's about it. It's still going to be ridiculously expensive since it's a single clone from and for a single person.
Idiocracy was a fun amusing movie, but you shouldn't take the science or its implications seriously. It's based on the most vile and discredited eugenics philosophy.
And kill kill kill! Have 10 or 20 kids! Get them all to KILL KILL KILL the gay vegan mooooooooooooooslims or they're gonna getcha! KILL! MURDER! WAR! DESTRUCTION! KILL! WAR! MURDER! KILL!
This was the perfect nonsense response to the super-nonsense grandparent poster.
It's a fucking Twitter post; there is no context. That's a problem with using it as a platform to try to articulate political positions. It's shallow, like our political discourse these days.
Slashdot Mirror
Evidence from two eyewitnesses is that Brown was murdered.
They recanted.
Witness 22 said she saw Wilson kill Brown in cold blood. She admitted later that she wasn't in the area and was just passing along information her boyfriend told her.
During grand jury testimony, she admitted "I just felt like I want to be part of something... I didn't see what I told the FBI what I saw."
One of the other witnesses who said Wilson murdered Brown admitted in a phone call that he didn't see the incident at all.
Witness 35 said Brown was "on his knees" when Wilson shot him in the head, despite forensic evidence indicating otherwise. Witness 35 admitted in his grand jury testimony that he made that part up.
Witness 37 said Brown was shot in the chest at the vehicle, then started giving contradictory recounts, eventually saying "If none of my stuff is making any sense, like why do y'all keep contacting me?"
I think the difference is, no one expects the Enquirer to be accurate. I mean, for fuck's sake, they've had stories about Bigfoot and Elvis meeting.
In the National Enquirer? Or Weekly World News?
The Enquirer is a celebrity gossip tabloid, but purports to be real. They've won some lawsuits, lost others, but they're not a Bigfoot/Elvis publication. Their specialty is he said/she said stories that are difficult to prove or disprove.
Just like PETA they're a bit over the top and often biased and unfair, but they're the only way society can move forward. Middle-of-the-road opinions don't bring change.
Moderate animal advocacy groups have brought some change. Most reasonable people, and everyone not already sympathetic, completely ignore PETA, the ALF, etcetc.
The riots in Ferguson have done nothing other than convince most people that there are some fucked up violent people who traveled to that city to burn, loot, and attack police.
Occupy Wall Street had no effect, NONE, other than spawn a bunch of homeless-like camps that everyone who didn't live in them hated. Find Barney Frank's interview on NPR for why he knew Occupy would be a total failure after he visited a few rallies.
The looney fringe does not drive societal change, because only the moderates are listened to by moderates or people from the other side. Violent radicals engender support for law enforcement to stop their violence, and the message gets lost because most people do not like such violence and city shutdowns, regardless of the cause. The British listened to Ghandi because he was more appealing to deal with than the terrorists bombing and butchering at the time. MLK got far more support in the US, and far more done, than the especially racist Nation of Islam ever did, or the Black Panthers.
On a side note? What is far -right? Is it the neo-nazis or free-market, pro-gay marriage libertarian outfits? What is the definition of far - right? Or is it simply - they disagree therefore they are far right?
It's a side note, but it's the more interesting one, IMO. :-D I think it comes down to different definitions of conservative. Whether it's "preserving the traditional way of things," or "preserving freedom," both considered right-wing but they can also be at odds.
Take the traditional conservative Christian evangelical. They wish to preserve the traditional morality of society, at least one where their morals were considered the standard, the default, the enforced. This is considered "conservative," because they wish to conserve their way of life in society, and reject societal changes which threaten their interpretation of The Good Book.
Then you have the Libertarian wing, or perhaps those a bit further to the right of the Libertarian Party. They believe in freedom from government interference, freedom to act according to their conscience. Freedom to do what they want with their own property. They are conservative because they don't feel like someone a thousand miles away has the right to, say, dictate water policy in their state. Or determine if they can cut down trees on their property. Or without property from the market at all. Or tell them who they're required to buy from or sell to. That is conservative in the more "you can't make my decisions for me" vein.
Sometimes those two groups come together for common purpose, whether it's against laws requiring the removal of religious symbols from public grounds, disagreement with the concept of "hate crimes," disagreement with affirmative action or quotas, encouraging tax cuts, etc. Even then they can be somewhat strange bedfellows, and their alliance may be one of convenience -- dislike of central authority being the thing that binds them together.
But often the groups might be at odds. Your freedom-loving libertarian might find especially distasteful sex laws governing behavior between consenting adults, such as anti-sodomy laws. Your typical conservative evangelical has no problem with those laws, nor would they have a problem with government promotion of Christianity, something a libertarian might find distasteful. The libertarian might consider anathema the idea of a draft, or of American forces sent to fight a war in another country that hadn't attacked us. Both might find common ground in the notion that the -federal- government should not be the ones to make mandates, but that the local government is constitutionally free to. IE, 'you run your town the way you want to, we'll run ours the way we want to.'
It's a strange mix at any time.
IE, it's legal for Trump's relatives to serve on his transition team, just not his cabinet.
It would also be legal for them to serve as "advisers," I believe.
Maybe, just maybe, it would be useful to reconsider these incidents with the point of view that it's *never* right for a police officer to kill a person.
I guess it depends on what we mean by 'right.' I don't think it's something that should be 'celebrated,' because I don't celebrate the ending of a life, but it is often justified. The police are neither indentured servants nor are they slaves, and they are people who have just as much of a right to life and to self-defense as anyone else does. That often goes missing in these various BLM-related discussions.
Holy shit, talk about dog-whistle-laden post.
"Hands up, don't shoot" came from a few witnesses, all of whom have recanted their testimony or been found to be lying. Every other witness testified that Brown did not have his hands up or was surrendering. It WAS a cause championed by Al Sharpton, who always wades in without knowing what he's talking about.
Forensic evidence at the scene is consistent with Officer Wilson retreating backwards. The county autopsy found gunshot wounds in Brown's arm, coming from both the front and the back, and said nothing about 'defensive posture.' It's entirely consistent with eyewitness accounts. The independent autopsy was done after evidence had been removed from the body and it had been washed and embalmed, and admitted it would be unable to forensically reconstruct the scene. The federal autopsy ordered by Eric Holder was consistent with the previous two.
I would agree with a protester who said "Even if you don't find that it's true, it's a valid rallying cry... it's just a metaphor." That's fine. And there certainly HAVE been unarmed people shot by nervous police who were making no threatening gestures. Let's just not pretend this was the case was Michael Brown.
No he didn't. And even if he had it wouldn't mean anything. You can't disprove a pattern by claiming (truthfully or not) that one example doesn't fit the pattern. You may have had a point if there wasn't Tamir Rice (cop acquitted), If the NRA had even MENTIONED Philando Castile, if there was no Eric Garner, of if the list of unarmed black men killed by US police this year alone was not currently at 1039 - that's an average of more than 3 a day, every day.
The parent poster didn't mention Tamir Rice, Eric Garner, etcetc. What he was discrediting was Michael Brown as a poster child as various BLM groups have done. Those groups have a lot of good points about policing in America, but you cannot pick a worse headliner for your cause than Michael Brown.
but doesn't apologize...
Just like Donald! Except often without the 'admits' part.
Downtime, DDoS, Censorship Usenet is the perfect solution
Usenet is more vulnerable to some of those problems. Large companies have the resources to fight DDoS attacks (usually) and Usenet is more vulnerable to DDoS attacks than regular websites (though not in the way you might think). The problem is that your totally unrestricted, no-rules, no filtered Usenet is quite vulnerable to the thing that killed Usenet for most people 15 years ago -- relentless, non-stop spam that bypasses filters, comes from way too many sources to filter out with IP bans, and that drowns out everything else. The onus would be on the end user to filter and honestly aside from sysadminy types who have yet to grow out of their "I can waste tons of time on this" phase, most won't be bothered. You can fix that with a moderated board, but at that point you're stuck with most of the problems the old website had and you don't really gain anything.
Sometimes you've gotta call a spade a spade.
I think many people here both understand how Usenet works, and why it went the way of the dodo well over a decade ago.
[The New York Times] demonized Trump from start to finish
Trump demonized Trump from the very beginning -- it's not 'demonizing' to report on his public statements.
And the MSM never stopped harping on Hillary and her stupid email story either. It's a manufactured scandal that could have died, but the main stream media never allowed it to, no matter how much you claim they were "in the tank" for Hillary.
This comment edited by CmdrTaco...oh wait he left here years ago right?
That's exactly what he wants you to think, and exactly what he would say if he were still here!
It reminds me of the panic in the 80s where various medics and social workers (often Christian) decided that Satanic rituals involving all that stuff was going on and lots of families' lives were ruined until it was discovered that the allegations were nonsense
I'm old enough to remember the "satanic ritual abuse" hoax from the 1980s and that's immediately what I thought of when this Pizzagate nonsense came up.
Public notice: "Rei" is a well known friend of the Clintons.
She's also really good with the force, and those were clearly "jedi mind-tricks" to distract from the issue.
So you're saying that some guy didn't go on the pizzagate subreddit and claim to have hacked "we the pizza"'s website and post cp as proof? Even the mods of pizzagate said it happened.
That just means the mods of Pizzagate are part of the corruption. They're in on it!
You're right, it should have been moderated down as Flamebait, even if it is technically Overrated.
Sure, anytime you don't like someone's politics, just ban them for "harassment" and people like serviscope_minor will tell everyone "it's a good reason", and just assume you're telling the truth (oh, someone may need to claim harassment every so often as well). It's very convenient.
Calling in death threats against employees and standing outside the joint slandering the owner, employees, and patrons because of a bullshit Internet meme isn't cool, and definitely counts as verified, documented harassment.
I've been on gab.ai, 4chan, 8ch and voat.co.
Well there's a problem right there. Don't go to those shitholes, problem solved.
You really should research this yourself and ask yourself why there is a boatload of evidence
This is usually code for "people have checked out the evidence, found that it's nonsense and unsupported, but the tinfoil-hatters are SUPER-CONVINCED that there's something there, and they'll conflate actual problems (DDOSing of wikileaks, etc) with imaginary ones (#pizzagate) and in the process, try to put the imaginary ones on the same footing with real problems.
I would also like to see Proof Of Life on Julian Assange
I would like to see proof that you have a penis, and my belief that you don't have one is just as valid as your counter-assertion that you do, and to disprove me you are obligated to post photographic evidence, because clearly everyone with better things to do don't need to spend their time dancing to the tune of the Internet's crazy paranoids.
Nobody really knows, but practical, full capability cloning seems to be sharing the "progress" list with cold fusion and artificial intelligence, always at least 5 to 10 years away from serious application.
Because it doesn't seem financially viable. Ok, so... you cloned Dolly. So what? What will it actually GET you? Cloning a creature is an order of magnitude more expensive than naturally birthing one from two parents, so the question is.. why would we want to? Why would we care?
It's the difference between theoretical science and applied science. The theoretical science part has certainly leaped ahead of applied science, which has somewhat shrugged because we don't see the benefits to cloning yet. Everything is going to be very expensive because you have experts working on the clone and it takes a lot of resources, and they have to be paid. Where does the money come from? Why should it be funded? The only semi-plausible commercial use I can think of is organ-cloning, and that's about it. It's still going to be ridiculously expensive since it's a single clone from and for a single person.
Watch the movie Idiocracy, and lament.
Idiocracy was a fun amusing movie, but you shouldn't take the science or its implications seriously. It's based on the most vile and discredited eugenics philosophy.
And kill kill kill! Have 10 or 20 kids! Get them all to KILL KILL KILL the gay vegan mooooooooooooooslims or they're gonna getcha! KILL! MURDER! WAR! DESTRUCTION! KILL! WAR! MURDER! KILL!
This was the perfect nonsense response to the super-nonsense grandparent poster.
It's a fucking Twitter post; there is no context. That's a problem with using it as a platform to try to articulate political positions. It's shallow, like our political discourse these days.