UwU
5d ago
They had enough time to say "get out of the (fucking) car" 3 times. When people are insisting that 1 second is an eternity for perfect deliberation when an SUV is accelerating towards you, then that 3+ second gap cannot be considered "suddenly". I wouldn't call it a lie, but it's not an accurate characterisation of events.
But you aren't arguing with people insisting that 1 second is an eternity for perfect deliberation. Neither @magicalkittycat nor I made that claim. Taking that into context, isn't it possible for us to characterize a few seconds as "suddenly" and still be logically consistent? And you did call it a lie, not just inaccurate.
I was also not overselling how much time we could see her. It was literally less than a second we get to see her mouth open after they try to forcefully open the door. She can enjoy LARPing as a plucky rebel when the single ICE officer was filming and circling her vehicle and then get spooked by the escalation when multiple other agents approach and try to grab her door. They are not mutually exclusive.
UwU
6d ago
The latter 99% of his post was about how attacking Iran wouldn't overthrow the regime?
UwU
6d ago
Not that it matters at all because it certainly wouldn't move the needle in anyone's mind, but:
- it was 2 guys approaching her from the left, not one. https://youtube.com/watch?v=K9CJY5p0xz4
- it's not clear how "suddenly" was a lie. That seems subjective and open to interpretation. It's 3 seconds between the guy getting out of his truck and trying to open her door
- we got like half a second of grainy vid to interpret that she smirked and smiled after the guy grabbed her door, afterwards she looked down and closed her mouth. So even if her initial expression was a smile (inconclusively), it's not unreasonable to assume her expression simply stayed frozen for a moment when that occurred and her inner emotions were more panicky than what can be gleaned from the few frames of visual evidence. See the 39th second of this video: https://x.com/alphanews/status/2009679932289626385.
Anyway, I just think she wasn't obviously not terrified. Could she have been terrified? Yes. The situation was scary to a reasonable person, and she tried to escape, quickly, which is certainly evidence, not conclusive evidence, but evidence nonetheless. Would it also be reasonable to conclude that she wasn't terrified based on the video evidence and your priors? Also yes.
UwU
9d ago
You can still disagree and say it's not factually correct without calling them intellectually dishonest.
UwU
9d ago
How do you feel about the Trump administration calling her a domestic terrorist who was participating in a violent riot?
UwU
9d ago
I really dislike this sort of debating where whoever is in hostile territory needs to be 100% perfect and get everything 100% correct or they get eviscerated and get called intellectually dishonest. Zero charity extended. (I get this all the time on Reddit)
Like, when @LiberalRetvrn said the ICE agent was yelling "get out of the fucking car", but actually the agent was just saying it very firmly in a confrontational way - not actually yelling. So he's technically factually wrong so now everyone gets to sneer and dunk on him. Or when he claimed the woman was panicked, but people here are certain that she wasn't panicked based on half a second of low pixel facial expressions in that video. So he's factually wrong again and is being a dishonest troll and everyone gets to dunk on him.
UwU
9d ago
I think what you say is very reasonable.
I just know if I'm on the jury and the victim has 3 bullet holes from a semi-automatic weapon and the defendant claims it was accidental discharge, I would not find that super credible.
UwU
9d ago
Agreed he didn't go down. I thought it was a bodycam footage as shakes claimed.
I doubt it was accidental though. The first shot was the best defensible shot whereas the others were through the open driver side window as the car was going by. If he didn't mean to fire the first one, I don't see why he would follow through with the rest. Also "I accidentally fired the first shot and then my training took over so I fired the rest" makes him look real bad.
UwU
9d ago
That explains things. Shakes said bodycam + goes down and I thought that was very contradictory to what was shown in prior videos.
Though watching the original videos again, I don't think his phone got knocked down. It was already lowered when he finished drawing his weapon.
UwU
9d ago
?? I'm really confused right now because the agent did not go down in any of the original videos. So something must be AI or at least doctored.
UwU
11d ago
UwU
11d ago
Nice joke, hard disagree on the facts though. The icy road didn't make her accidentally turn the wheels to the right. The cop was already on the left side of her car. If she wanted to ram him, she wouldn't need to turn right at all, and neither bullet nor ice would have stopped her car from going over him, considering how far it went afterwards.
UwU
11d ago
If there was a riot we'd see visual evidence of it on social media. It's not like they only started filming after the shooting.
UwU
11d ago
Yeah, he cut off the video right when the wheel was straight, and then replayed it again and again, stopping at that instant to make his point. Why did he not show the full video in which the wheel completes the turn from left to right? My point still stands, if she wanted to run the officer over, then she could have.
UwU
11d ago
There are multiple camera angles and photos of this incident and most of the protestors were seen walking around with their phones out. If no footage of a violent riot materializes in the coming hours/days, it's just a lie.
UwU
11d ago
Not at all. She was turning to the right. Maybe it's still a justified shooting because the officer couldn't read her mind, but if she wanted to run him over, she could have.
UwU
15d ago
"Plans" is too generous. More like concepts of a plan.
I'd give it as much confidence as the Trump healthcare plan.
UwU
1mo ago
Am I understanding this correctly that striking the boat and killing everyone would be fine and legal, striking the boat and killing a bunch and letting the rest drown or be eaten by sharks is fine and legal. But sending in a second strike to "finish the job", that is crossing a line, that is a war crime, Hegseth must be sent to the Hague for hanging?
Yes it would be a war crime. Why do you think there's so much ink spilled down thread about whether the second strike was to sink the disabled boat and the deaths were incidental or that it was done specifically to kill the survivors? You are not allowed to kill shipwrecked crew who are out of combat.
What say you to this: "Am I understanding this correctly that shooting the fighter plane down and killing the pilot would be fine and legal, allowing the pilot to bail to be eaten by bears in the woods is fine and legal. But strafing the parachuting pilot to "finish the job", that is crossing a line, that is a war crime?"
UwU
2mo ago
I think the weakness with this analysis is that it focuses mainly on Russia for the first two points and misses the context for Ukraine. Point number two is even more dire for Ukraine than Russia, especially manpower-wise. There's really no solution for it other than getting Western countries to send troops, and I don't see that happening.
My read is that Ukraine in 2025 is similar to Germany in 1943 -- everyone who knows anything about the war knows that the loss inevitable given the strategic picture. But still, they have to play pretend to keep the public morale high and go through the motions just in case Ukraine rolls a series of nat-20s, or to maximize its negotiating position, or to squirrel away more personal wealth. But just because the war is inevitably lost doesn't mean Russian propagandists are right and Ukraine is just two weeks away from collapse. It can still drag the war out for two more years and inflict hundreds of thousands more Russian casualties.
UwU
2mo ago
I think what you've wrote so far in the previous two comments are reasonable, but the key thing I'm still caught up on is why you don't think such discrimination can motivate someone to de-transition.
Like with the example with the clown suit guy going to interviews, surely when he gets rejected often, he might rethink the clown suits? Okay, maybe not all the time, because there's institutions preaching clown suits acceptance, but a percentage of the people who de-clownsuited give this as the reason is at least plausible?
Or perhaps the example where folks with atypical tattoos and piercings getting treated adversely by society, surely it's understandable that some percentage of the people who covered up their tattoos or gotten rid of their piercings can point to this as the reason?
UwU
2mo ago
And structurally black people are probably more advantaged than whites but it's a different thing to argue that racism doesn't exist.
UwU
2mo ago
Did your argument change from "they are not being discriminated" to "they are and it's good"? Because that how it reads.
In the previous comment your argument seemed to be the discrimination shouldn't count because they are trivial and tiny, but in this one it seems like you are agreeing that the discrimination is material, but that it's justified. If my interpretation is wrong, please clarify.
UwU
2mo ago
Do most mottizens live in a woke utopia or what? Do you just internalize values from international corporations, governments (up until 2025 for the US I guess), public schools, Hollywood? I certainly don't in general, and also specifically for the trans topic. Most people don't either, especially on the motte. So what's with this willful ignorance
Yes, the "europoors" care more about their sovereign territory than tariffs or hypothetical pull backs of Ukraine aid.
More options
Context Copy link