I am going to re quote myself because I don't think you read it.
"I am not trying to make the cops to be completely innocently in this, but their job is walking into an unknown situation with unknown risks and are required to gain control to enforce law and order. You are pretty quick to blame without all the facts of the situation."
Added emphasis. The facts of these shootings and previous shootings have been specious at best when they first come out, yet people let their emotions run. It's better to hear about how The Man keeps you down and the cops will shoot an innocent black man on sight rather than hear about the individual circumstance.
Go ahead though, put all the blame on one party. I am sure that isn't over simplifying the problem at all.
Second cops are taught to maintain control of the situation to matter what.
Must be that whole law and order thing, huh? Would you really want law enforcement not be able to maintain control of a situation they are responsible for?
Tell a cop knocking on your door that he can't come in and what him flip out, kick the door in and pull a gun on you.
Have you tried this? I will bet you haven't. If you don't know what your rights are or what the police can do that is really your problem.
Why do cops get trials where a judge decides?
You do realize you can opt to waive your trial by jury for a bench trial? So, you mean to tell me that a cop, much like the tax collector who is disliked by most, wouldn't want to be judged by a random bunch of emotionally driven citizens? Color me surprised.
I am not trying to make the cops to be completely innocently in this, but their job is walking into an unknown situation with unknown risks and are required to gain control to enforce law and order. You are pretty quick to blame without all the facts of the situation.
Ok, first a six pointed star alone is not anti-Semitic. Nothing in that picture was anti-Semitic. You are an idiot if you think a basic shape == racist!
Yes, and you missed my point. Even with all of that you are talking about something like 0.00002% difference between the two. That isn't "all too common".
If you remove a few cities then the US is on par with Europe with these statistics. You want to apply "there is literally nothing you can do to stop some determined people with a plan" for those instances in Europe but not for the examples you gave in USA.
The fact is, violence is decreasing across the board regardless of a gun or not. We are talking about vanishingly small rates.
And again, even if the rates were 10x what it is: Rights have a price in blood. In the USA, owning a gun is a right just like the free speech.
Well, if we are going to pick and choose just remove the gang violence in the US and you would have parity with Europe. Or just remove a few cities like Chicago (which have some of the strictest gun laws in the US) and again you would have parity with Europe for gun violence.
Your "all too common" is misleading when we are talking about 0.00002% and especially when you want to ignore "particular instances". As you say "there is literally nothing you can do to stop some determined people with a plan". Well then, isn't that the case for Orlando?
If you think bans work, tell me about how drugs are off the street and the great success story of Prohibition.
Violence is down trending across the board with or without guns.
All rights have a price in blood. Owning a gun in the US is a right on par with free speech. Ideas can kill millions, should we ban ideas or the expression thereof?
Honestly, I don't care much about societal expectations. Be your own person.
If there is toxic masculinity there is toxic femininity. (not going to use this "study" as an example because there are problems with it even if it confirms the little anecdotal experiences I have seen that women are bitchy to each other). I don't think that masculinity or femininity is toxic. I think individuals become toxic through their own experiences and environments as was mentioned in one the links I posted in the other reply to your post. Saying toxic masculinity is the cause of problems is disingenuous and derails any conversation because sweeping generalizations without substantiated evidence.
Feminazis are the equivalent of those extremes in the manosphere you mentioned. They exist. They are sexists and disgusting. They do get in the way with legal equality that MRAs and you want.
I don't know the context from the quote to I cannot comment much aside from doesn't sound like she hates women.
One of the interesting points that I have heard from her and my wife (who listens to her more than I) is if you call the women's abuse hotline it is; "go here we will help you, support you, etc." Call the mens hotline; "If you believe you are about to abuse your spouse." ( not quite the same thing but similar that sort of corroborates what they have said)
There are legitimate reasons for MRAs to exist right now because there are objective legal rights and laws that favor women over men this being one example. I do not know of a single objective law or right that favors men so explicitly.
the movement as a whole is associated with groups like A Voice for Men and tends to spout misogynist rhetoric via its website.
Yes, groups have extremist elements to it that does not undermine the objective rights that MRAs are seeking that men do not have. I have gotten in many arguments with MGTOW and other actual misogynists but from what I have seen is that most of their hatred comes from being abused either emotionally or physically.
One quote out of context is not enough for me to call someone a misogynists. Especially when I have listened to their podcast (granted in the background so not really hanging on every word) and heard their ideas. They do not come off as misogynist. They seem concerned with the current state of affairs that says women can only be victims. She has identified laws that are sexists against men. She wants legal gender equality that currently favor women. How is that misogynist?
Yes, because complaints over a picture filter are just as valid as the complaints of segregation and Jim Crow laws... How absurd. I hope you get some perspective at some point in your life.
As another poster said further below in this threat; Isn't it something that people don't have to complain about food, shelter, disease, war, or legitimate institutionalized racism? Instead, the loudest complaints are about video games and pictures that literally hurt no one.
To be fair, there has always been a divide between the urban and rural states. The \reason for the electoral college is the same reason for a bicameral congress.
Oh, I have no doubt of this. Her agenda being; anything and everything for Hillary. She isn't running to do well for he nation. She is running because she wants to be first female president. She is out for her and only her. Everything else be damned.
No thanks. I would rather someone that can't get something done because pie in the sky dreams that may or may not help than someone whose only principle and ethic is "me first fuck anyone else".
I would rather a used incompetent car salesman with delusions of grandeur than someone so Machiavellian.
Take Brietbart for what its worth but the links are at the bottom.
The whole "ends justify the means" or "there are no wrong tactics just bad targets" is counter productive and destructive.
If you believe what Anita believes that "Everything is racist. Everything is sexist. Everything is homophobic." then it is no wonder people see it where it is not.
I actually wonder if Sanders could win as a third ticket bid. He might be able to pick up the Republicans that Trump alienated and the left that doesn't like Clinton. He already does very well with independents. Could be a winning combination cut three ways.
I think it would definitely be a run for both Trump and Clinton for their money if he ran third party.
This is applicable to Trump as well. From Republican establishment to extreme left, I'd say his list of enemies are a particular bunch with a certain vernacular to be hated.
Say what you want about him or his ideas but violently protesting and no-platforming the guy is unacceptable in my book.
If there ever was a protest vote, Trump is just that. I support Bernie but if it is between Trump or Clinton. President Trump sounds palpable.
Right, because sexism/racism is power + prejudice. It's impossible to be sexist against men just like it is impossible to be racist against white.
The sad thing about your comment, MRA's do have valid legal grievances (divorce court, domestic disputes, child custody, bodily integrity, etc to name a few) . Compare that to man-spreading and patriarchy. As much bat shit crazy there is in the man-o-sphere there just as much bat shit in feminist circles.
You sound like Steve Shives who summarily dismisses the concerns of fathers that want to see their kids because of discriminatory child custody laws but think that the God-like Patriarchy is a real threat to everyone everywhere!
Slashdot Mirror
I am going to re quote myself because I don't think you read it.
"I am not trying to make the cops to be completely innocently in this, but their job is walking into an unknown situation with unknown risks and are required to gain control to enforce law and order. You are pretty quick to blame without all the facts of the situation."
Added emphasis. The facts of these shootings and previous shootings have been specious at best when they first come out, yet people let their emotions run. It's better to hear about how The Man keeps you down and the cops will shoot an innocent black man on sight rather than hear about the individual circumstance.
Go ahead though, put all the blame on one party. I am sure that isn't over simplifying the problem at all.
. First cops have the us versus them mentality
I wonder why.
Second cops are taught to maintain control of the situation to matter what.
Must be that whole law and order thing, huh? Would you really want law enforcement not be able to maintain control of a situation they are responsible for?
Tell a cop knocking on your door that he can't come in and what him flip out, kick the door in and pull a gun on you.
Have you tried this? I will bet you haven't. If you don't know what your rights are or what the police can do that is really your problem.
Why do cops get trials where a judge decides?
You do realize you can opt to waive your trial by jury for a bench trial? So, you mean to tell me that a cop, much like the tax collector who is disliked by most, wouldn't want to be judged by a random bunch of emotionally driven citizens? Color me surprised.
I am not trying to make the cops to be completely innocently in this, but their job is walking into an unknown situation with unknown risks and are required to gain control to enforce law and order. You are pretty quick to blame without all the facts of the situation.
anti-semitic imagery taken from neo-nazi sites.
Ok, first a six pointed star alone is not anti-Semitic. Nothing in that picture was anti-Semitic. You are an idiot if you think a basic shape == racist!
Second, the "neo-nazi site" was 8chan/pol. It wasn't Stormfront. It was a fucking image board on /pol.
I seriously hate having to defend Trump like this but seriously the misinformation is incredible.
Yes, and you missed my point. Even with all of that you are talking about something like 0.00002% difference between the two. That isn't "all too common".
If you remove a few cities then the US is on par with Europe with these statistics. You want to apply "there is literally nothing you can do to stop some determined people with a plan" for those instances in Europe but not for the examples you gave in USA.
The fact is, violence is decreasing across the board regardless of a gun or not. We are talking about vanishingly small rates.
And again, even if the rates were 10x what it is: Rights have a price in blood. In the USA, owning a gun is a right just like the free speech.
Well, if we are going to pick and choose just remove the gang violence in the US and you would have parity with Europe. Or just remove a few cities like Chicago (which have some of the strictest gun laws in the US) and again you would have parity with Europe for gun violence.
Your "all too common" is misleading when we are talking about 0.00002% and especially when you want to ignore "particular instances". As you say "there is literally nothing you can do to stop some determined people with a plan". Well then, isn't that the case for Orlando?
If you think bans work, tell me about how drugs are off the street and the great success story of Prohibition.
Violence is down trending across the board with or without guns.
All rights have a price in blood. Owning a gun in the US is a right on par with free speech. Ideas can kill millions, should we ban ideas or the expression thereof?
Do you honestly believe that more gun-free zones and laws would've stopped him?
Do you think having little to no access to guns makes it harder to commit a shooting?
How did stronger gun restrictions help in Paris?
Honestly, I don't care much about societal expectations. Be your own person.
If there is toxic masculinity there is toxic femininity. (not going to use this "study" as an example because there are problems with it even if it confirms the little anecdotal experiences I have seen that women are bitchy to each other). I don't think that masculinity or femininity is toxic. I think individuals become toxic through their own experiences and environments as was mentioned in one the links I posted in the other reply to your post. Saying toxic masculinity is the cause of problems is disingenuous and derails any conversation because sweeping generalizations without substantiated evidence.
Feminazis are the equivalent of those extremes in the manosphere you mentioned. They exist. They are sexists and disgusting. They do get in the way with legal equality that MRAs and you want.
This seems oddly appropriate. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Sure, some MRAs might be dicks... but there are legitimate concerns that should not be swept under the rug because muh soggy knees.
I don't know the context from the quote to I cannot comment much aside from doesn't sound like she hates women.
One of the interesting points that I have heard from her and my wife (who listens to her more than I) is if you call the women's abuse hotline it is; "go here we will help you, support you, etc." Call the mens hotline; "If you believe you are about to abuse your spouse." ( not quite the same thing but similar that sort of corroborates what they have said)
This disparity seems to be what Karen is mostly on about. Women can be the perpetrators of domestic violence yet we have seen feminists not only mock but block any effort to help victims.
There are legitimate reasons for MRAs to exist right now because there are objective legal rights and laws that favor women over men this being one example. I do not know of a single objective law or right that favors men so explicitly.
the movement as a whole is associated with groups like A Voice for Men and tends to spout misogynist rhetoric via its website.
Yes, groups have extremist elements to it that does not undermine the objective rights that MRAs are seeking that men do not have. I have gotten in many arguments with MGTOW and other actual misogynists but from what I have seen is that most of their hatred comes from being abused either emotionally or physically.
One quote out of context is not enough for me to call someone a misogynists. Especially when I have listened to their podcast (granted in the background so not really hanging on every word) and heard their ideas. They do not come off as misogynist. They seem concerned with the current state of affairs that says women can only be victims. She has identified laws that are sexists against men. She wants legal gender equality that currently favor women. How is that misogynist?
How are the Honey Badgers misogynists?
My wife likes listening to them and everything I have heard from them has not been misogynistic... Can you elaborate on this?
anti-feminist != misogynist.
Yes, because complaints over a picture filter are just as valid as the complaints of segregation and Jim Crow laws... How absurd. I hope you get some perspective at some point in your life.
As another poster said further below in this threat; Isn't it something that people don't have to complain about food, shelter, disease, war, or legitimate institutionalized racism? Instead, the loudest complaints are about video games and pictures that literally hurt no one.
May the jewce be with you. Always - Obi One Jewnobi.
be done soon enough,
That's not soon enough!
Agreed. However, I do think that if he did run third party it would be a rare instance where a third party could win the general. I can dream.
To be fair, there has always been a divide between the urban and rural states. The \reason for the electoral college is the same reason for a bicameral congress.
she's more likely to get her agenda done.
Oh, I have no doubt of this. Her agenda being; anything and everything for Hillary. She isn't running to do well for he nation. She is running because she wants to be first female president. She is out for her and only her. Everything else be damned.
No thanks. I would rather someone that can't get something done because pie in the sky dreams that may or may not help than someone whose only principle and ethic is "me first fuck anyone else".
I would rather a used incompetent car salesman with delusions of grandeur than someone so Machiavellian.
because it just makes it even harder for other people to complain about discrimination
This is the real tragedy. Just like any false claim that appear to be on the rise. http://www.breitbart.com/milo/...
Take Brietbart for what its worth but the links are at the bottom.
The whole "ends justify the means" or "there are no wrong tactics just bad targets" is counter productive and destructive.
If you believe what Anita believes that "Everything is racist. Everything is sexist. Everything is homophobic." then it is no wonder people see it where it is not.
I actually wonder if Sanders could win as a third ticket bid. He might be able to pick up the Republicans that Trump alienated and the left that doesn't like Clinton. He already does very well with independents. Could be a winning combination cut three ways.
I think it would definitely be a run for both Trump and Clinton for their money if he ran third party.
What the fuck's a tigglypuff?
https://youtu.be/BY1H1rZL53I?t...
Wait, so because you disagree on whether a Trump vote is a protest vote means I don't understand democracy?
Tell me more about how democracy isn't about people voting for whatever reason they want.
She has excellent taste in enemies.
This is applicable to Trump as well. From Republican establishment to extreme left, I'd say his list of enemies are a particular bunch with a certain vernacular to be hated.
Say what you want about him or his ideas but violently protesting and no-platforming the guy is unacceptable in my book.
If there ever was a protest vote, Trump is just that. I support Bernie but if it is between Trump or Clinton. President Trump sounds palpable.
I see "Fiona" and automatically think Shrek. =/
Though to be fair, she is most certainly not like cake.
NdGT didn't blow it up with a cannon or anything.
That's what the government wants you to think.
Right, because sexism/racism is power + prejudice. It's impossible to be sexist against men just like it is impossible to be racist against white.
The sad thing about your comment, MRA's do have valid legal grievances (divorce court, domestic disputes, child custody, bodily integrity, etc to name a few) . Compare that to man-spreading and patriarchy. As much bat shit crazy there is in the man-o-sphere there just as much bat shit in feminist circles.
You sound like Steve Shives who summarily dismisses the concerns of fathers that want to see their kids because of discriminatory child custody laws but think that the God-like Patriarchy is a real threat to everyone everywhere!
I don't even mind systemd
Blocked. We don't take kindly to your type around here. Why don't you just move along sir. *Block intensifying*