If I was one of the special people, you would have a responsibility to accommodate my personal problems. But I'm just a regular 99.99% person, and people like us can fuck off.
If you had a daughter would you like a 6' muscular, tattooed bald guy liking to fuck women to be using the same bathroom as her? Because that's what you propose.
You don't understand the woke rules. That daughter has a responsibility to understand that guy and make him feel comfortable, even if she's only 10 years old. Meanwhile he has zero responsibility to make her comfortable. Those are the woke rules.
Maybe you don't understand the message. The message is "shut up and do as you're told". They're going to keep making it more and more absurd specifically so people like you know your true status.
Rules should benefit 0.01% of the population, because they matter most. Everyone else should change behavior and culture and their understanding of nature and the world to make these 0.01% of people feel comfortable.
The rest of us can expect nothing in return for the effort to accommodate the 0.01% of people who matter.
They're already very good at it; the problem is that jackasses like you expect them to be perfect. This is, again, impossible. May as well expect airliners to never crash.
It's easy to say that, but you have no idea how to do it. You have no idea what current procedures are, nor do you have any suggestions to improve them. It's easy to sit on the sidelines saying "DO BETTER", isn't it?
Do they want to do better? I haven't seen a change in their attitude that suggests they do. Usually people who want to do better don't claim there's nothing that needs changing.
The obvious idea would be to score performance based on reviewing body camera recordings of police dealings with the public. Serve the public, score higher. Bully the public, score lower. Defuse a tense situation, score higher. Use violence without first trying to defuse a situation, score lower. It's not rocket science.
That's his opinion. Others may say that open source is moral but the value system isn't precisely equivalent to Stallman's. Stallman is effectively claiming that his value system is the one and only.
For the record, I'm not cop bashing, I'm bashing their modern-day policies and attitudes. I want the police to adopt a new attitude of protecting life and serving the public.
[several sentence attempting to change the subject to me deleted]
Nice try. It's not about me. Anything about me is beyond irrelevant.
There are plenty of checks and balances in play (your other assertions that there arenâ(TM)t are incorrect).
Yet police are still out there shooting innocent people (and shooting guilty people when those people are not a threat) and receiving zero punishment for it. So no, there aren't "plenty" of checks and balances.
Yes, there is more of a benefit of doubt applies to armed response teams. That is because the psychology and statistical likelihoods of events occurring are well understood.
Storytelling about what might happen.
If a pattern emerges of wrong action, you bet someone will be pulled up and lose that benefit of doubt.
But never punished. Even police officers who are judged unfit and fired just go to some other town's police force.
Out of interest, what is your experience in the field of security/crisis operation?
We have a government "by the people". That means everyone votes and our representatives make the rules. Self-interested "experts" don't decide, we decide.
BTW: Slashdot doesn't support the character set your iPhone is using, so it makes a mess whenever you use apostrophes or quotation marks.
- make prank callers suffer Make it really really not worth it. Put them in real jail for 10 years without possibility of early release. Show them crying and yelling "I didn't mean to!!!1111" on national TV. Make sure people get it.
"Mandatory fact-finding" is nice and all, but if it can be difference between life and death for a victim. Police should act fast.
Anyone willing to do 10 years, or anyone who thinks they'll get away with it (like this guy did, over and over and over again) can order up an assassination then.
Violent crime is at historic, generational lows. Police should act carefully.
I actually do a perfect job at not killing innocent people.
But your argument is irrelevant. Police serve the public. That means members of the public, like me and everyone else, are in charge. We decide. Police can serve under the rules that we decide or go get other jobs. Period.
They should do a much better job. When they stop killing innocent people, that will be how we know they've improved training and procedures and their approach to the lives of people around them.
When they stop stonewalling public accountability, we'll know they've finally realized their role is to serve the public rather than oversee us as if we were cattle to be milked for taxes and traffic fines.
Slashdot Mirror
If I was one of the special people, you would have a responsibility to accommodate my personal problems. But I'm just a regular 99.99% person, and people like us can fuck off.
If you had a daughter would you like a 6' muscular, tattooed bald guy liking to fuck women to be using the same bathroom as her? Because that's what you propose.
You don't understand the woke rules. That daughter has a responsibility to understand that guy and make him feel comfortable, even if she's only 10 years old. Meanwhile he has zero responsibility to make her comfortable. Those are the woke rules.
Why not stop changing the world around to accommodate tiny, tiny minorities who don't try to accommodate the rest of us?
And yeah, shameful how little we can expect to receive in return for a modicum of human decency.
We don't receive human decency in return.
Maybe you don't understand the message. The message is "shut up and do as you're told". They're going to keep making it more and more absurd specifically so people like you know your true status.
Rules should benefit 0.01% of the population, because they matter most. Everyone else should change behavior and culture and their understanding of nature and the world to make these 0.01% of people feel comfortable.
The rest of us can expect nothing in return for the effort to accommodate the 0.01% of people who matter.
How much do typewriters cost?
It's not the 1990s anymore.
They're already very good at it; the problem is that jackasses like you expect them to be perfect. This is, again, impossible. May as well expect airliners to never crash.
The last fatal US airline crash was in 2009, so they've already more-or-less achieved that.
It's easy to say that, but you have no idea how to do it. You have no idea what current procedures are, nor do you have any suggestions to improve them.
It's easy to sit on the sidelines saying "DO BETTER", isn't it?
Do they want to do better? I haven't seen a change in their attitude that suggests they do. Usually people who want to do better don't claim there's nothing that needs changing.
The obvious idea would be to score performance based on reviewing body camera recordings of police dealings with the public. Serve the public, score higher. Bully the public, score lower. Defuse a tense situation, score higher. Use violence without first trying to defuse a situation, score lower. It's not rocket science.
That's his opinion. Others may say that open source is moral but the value system isn't precisely equivalent to Stallman's. Stallman is effectively claiming that his value system is the one and only.
If you consider any and all different choices than yours to be "amoral", that's a vice.
For the record, I'm not cop bashing, I'm bashing their modern-day policies and attitudes. I want the police to adopt a new attitude of protecting life and serving the public.
America has more guns than people. You're not from here = you do not understand that.
This is the excuse used to excuse police killing innocents, even though violent crime has been dropping for 25 years.
Let's task the police with protecting everyone's life so they get better at not killing innocents.
Then everyone dies and the cops get called for not protecting people.
"Then everyone dies" is a made up story. The Kansas shooting is an actual story of something that actually happened.
The police already have no legal duty to provide police protection. The thing you are arguing against as a hypothetical is what we already have.
[several sentence attempting to change the subject to me deleted]
Nice try. It's not about me. Anything about me is beyond irrelevant.
There are plenty of checks and balances in play (your other assertions that there arenâ(TM)t are incorrect).
Yet police are still out there shooting innocent people (and shooting guilty people when those people are not a threat) and receiving zero punishment for it. So no, there aren't "plenty" of checks and balances.
Yes, there is more of a benefit of doubt applies to armed response teams. That is because the psychology and statistical likelihoods of events occurring are well understood.
Storytelling about what might happen.
If a pattern emerges of wrong action, you bet someone will be pulled up and lose that benefit of doubt.
But never punished. Even police officers who are judged unfit and fired just go to some other town's police force.
Out of interest, what is your experience in the field of security/crisis operation?
We have a government "by the people". That means everyone votes and our representatives make the rules. Self-interested "experts" don't decide, we decide.
BTW: Slashdot doesn't support the character set your iPhone is using, so it makes a mess whenever you use apostrophes or quotation marks.
Much simpler:
- make prank callers suffer
Make it really really not worth it. Put them in real jail for 10 years without possibility of early release. Show them crying and yelling "I didn't mean to!!!1111" on national TV. Make sure people get it.
"Mandatory fact-finding" is nice and all, but if it can be difference between life and death for a victim. Police should act fast.
Anyone willing to do 10 years, or anyone who thinks they'll get away with it (like this guy did, over and over and over again) can order up an assassination then.
Violent crime is at historic, generational lows. Police should act carefully.
Yes, that's exactly the attitude that results in police killing innocents. Congratulations on illustrating it for everyone.
Don't shoot the bad guys either. Then you won't figure out later you made a mistake. Protect the lives of everyone.
The public decides. Whether that decision is an informed one or a random one, it's our decision to make.
When a violent crime is happening and lives are hanging in the balance, there's no time for your little checklist.
Plenty of time to gun down innocents though.
Had this criminal not placed a fake call to police, none of this would have happened, would it?
Same thing could be said if it was local street gangs doing drive-by shootings for hire. Are the gang members who actually do the shooting innocent?
I actually do a perfect job at not killing innocent people.
But your argument is irrelevant. Police serve the public. That means members of the public, like me and everyone else, are in charge. We decide. Police can serve under the rules that we decide or go get other jobs. Period.
Wow. That's amazingly stupid even by PopeRatzo standards.
Let's start with looking around before opening fire on people. Even that is apparently considered too much to ask.
They should do a much better job. When they stop killing innocent people, that will be how we know they've improved training and procedures and their approach to the lives of people around them.
When they stop stonewalling public accountability, we'll know they've finally realized their role is to serve the public rather than oversee us as if we were cattle to be milked for taxes and traffic fines.