Chapelgentry @ Chapelgentry @lemmynsfw.com

Posts

0

Comments

62

Joined

2 yr. ago

So your options are: vote for ultra-genocide, vote for disapproving genocide, or vote for ultra-genocide but you feel good about it. Great options.

World leaders throughout history do that with dictators. Your solution would be to start wars over public insults? Dictators aren't going to take public insults lightly, particularly those with nuclear capability.

I'd imagine that having no allies in the Middle East isn't a strategically sound plan. If Israel is going to do their thing anyway and can arm themselves we gain nothing by rebuke. The only way we could enact real change would be to threaten or attack our only ally in the region which is self-defeating and doesn't solve the problem.

I think the easiest way to prove he didn't is to prove someone else did. I don't think he will be able to do that easily, particularly because I think he made those posts.

I think it's a matter of decorum. In general we shouldn't attack people's kids (when they're minors) for normal occurrences, even if their a public figure.

I was against bashing Barron when he was a minor, and I'm against bashing Gus until he's of legal age. In general, however, I refrain from bashing people and would encourage the same decorum from others.

Being able to criticize is not open license to do so in my opinion.

Him, most other world leaders, most of the populace, etc etc. Under your definition nearly everyone is an evil piece of shit. /Shrug

What propaganda are you talking about? He's leaving office, so what is left to manipulate here other than his legacy, which doesn't really impact anyone?

I think that analogy is worse. If my scumbag sibling killed someone and I didn't say they were a scumbag and distance myself from them and instead defended them and enabled them to continue being a scumbag I damn well deserve others' ire.

This isn't the one bad cop in America, this is just one of many whose colleagues enable and approve of their actions. Often defenders of these shitbags say, "it's just one bad apple" but they forget the rest of the saying that one bad apple spoils the bunch. In this case, too, the people that should hold themselves to a higher standard as a group are the ones making themselves look shitty by not doing so.

Not sure how people with family and friends of "decent cops" can defend them as a whole, particularly when most of them call on their cop friend or family member to help get them out of tickets. They're just as bad (lol).

To clarify, what were the previous posters being dishonest about? The threat of the boiling water? If it's that, I would conjecture that the cop mishandling the situation was what made the threat even a little credible.

If not that, can you give me more detail on what the others were being dishonest about?

I think the bit of context here that is lacking is why she felt the need to drop to the floor in the first place. Was she hurt? Dizzy? Pain medication kick in? Did he point his gun at her and she reflexively dropped? The pot didn't go with her; it was still on the sink. From the cops' vantage point he would've likely seen that.

Beyond that, she's the victim. Granted, police should use due diligence when responding to calls, but taking the stance that anyone is an adversary leads to guns being drawn and people being beaten waaay too early in the interaction and with little provocation. Suspicion of all leads to paranoid responses, and we see the fruits of that in this and other encounters.

I'f be curious to know which you see as being more important here - the cops' life or the civilians? Just trying to understand the frame of reference.

I think you're overstating the threat here. The above commenter, though being facetious, is making a good point. The cop told her to take her pasta off the stove and even joked with her about avoiding the steam. Then he shot her. She was standing at a sink behind a raised-bar style countertop with a pot of water. Assuming she's going to be able to chuck it over the counter at the cop is a bit of a stretch, particularly given her demeanor throughout the encounter. Nevermind the fact that she's standing there with two armed men that could easily kill her (and one did), it's bonkers to assume she would have both the motive and capability to do so.

It's one thing if she behaved erratically to that point, but she didn't. Additionally, if the cop was really concerned about the pot he could have said, "no, stay on the couch." It's just an odd hill to die on stating the cop was concerned about the pot.

I think Mark Kelly would be a safe bet for the nomination. I heard he was already approached about it

I was surprised at the comment until I saw who made it.

I'd assume in order to be a 90s kid you would've needed to have a memory of your existence in the 90s. Most kids can't remember anything earlier than 4-5 years old, so the cutoff of 1994 seems about right using that criteria.

Sounds about right. I have seen similar markers in California to measure fault line movement on an annual basis, as well as several in Yellowstone for roughly similar reasons. Seems like this is a survey marker to measure distance or alignment.

No, what You're saying is a non-sequitur. It doesn't follow and your logic is wrong.

That's a non-sequitur. Being marginalized isn't a prerequisite for being a bigot.

Much better to take offense and ban than educate.

I'm assuming British Columbia Canada. Could be wrong though.