It's common in the American conciousness to assume that Iran = bad, but I get the impression that a lot of Iran's badness is exaggerated by Western media.
American media, which is still enthralled with the Obama administration, which wanted to empower Iran, is constantly churning out pro-Iran propaganda. That the average American still thinks Iran is pretty bad is an example of reality winning out over forced media narratives.
Seems like you don't understand the psychology of riots. Very few people set out to riot, and certainly there is little evidence jan 6 was such a time. Instead protests escalate to riots when certain factors come to play, most notably on J6 was that no actual guidance was given by police as to what borders were going to be enforced. Instead there was a shoddily constructed perimeter which was quickly abandoned, and then the fleeing police failed to secure the doorways.
Thats only a reasonable response if she thought the ICE officer was an impersonator though...
I do personally prefer the old rule that police or civilians can use deadly force to subdue criminals fleeing from a felony. Obstruction would not be a common law felony but thats only relevant for a question where the cop shot her in the back while she's on foot.
Its simply a bad comparison. The central problem with Jan6th is that the Capital Police consistently failed to do their job, and those failures were the cause that escalated the protest into a riot, and eventually into Babbitt's death. Its important to note that the officer that shot Babbitt was not the first one she encountered that day, she had just walked past several other officers who were acting as if she was legally inside the building. There is no such lack of cohesion here by the ICE officers. None of them are telling her to drive while another is telling her to stop.
I think grouping cars, which most Americans have, in with deadly weapons for this purpose, while technically correct, is a good example of the non-central fallacy. "In order to make a living in this country, you need [thing]. If you have [thing], then police are entitled to kill you if you try to escape arrest" is rather Catch-22-adjacent.
The most dangerous thing the average person does in any day in America is get on the road and trust other people to do a good job driving. Adding an additional element of some miscreant going 90 MPH in a 30 and blowing multiple lights/stop signs so they can avoid a petty traffic, misdemeanor, or warrant is not something I would encourage the legal system to incentivize.
And also, when did this trend of people just basically saying civil disobedience = no consequences thing happen? You can protest the law peacefully and boringly with a sign and a lame chant. Going out and stopping cops from arresting rapists because you think rape is good doesnt mean you get a free pass just because you cast a frame. In civil disobedience you serve your time, then convince the public and win a later victory as part of the sacrifice of substantial portions of your life.
Otherwise, everyone could claim to do this and face nothing. Maybe Timmy McVeigh's complaints about the Feds were legit. Why dont we just let him out on his own recognizance for a few decades and then arrest him when he is 99 and we have, as a society, finally determined his cause was bunk.
I understand it creates a greater risk to the general public (what if the fleeing suspect crashes head-on into another passenger car?) but that doesn't seem to be a super common outcome, and I don't think “if I don't shoot this guy he might end up causing a fatal accident” is sufficient justification to use lethal force from the start.
It seems fairly common to me. Most local police department have promulgated regulations to terminate high speed chases for the exact reason that the outcome of collateral damage is so incredibly common. Including, frankly, to the officers themselves.
High speed chases are worse than cops just shooting the fleeing driver. They put not just the driver at risk, but the police and the rest of the public. At least if you shoot the criminal the worst that can happen is a minor criminal is dead. In a high speed chase you can have dozens of civilians killed.
There's an obvious point here where ordinary cops have a real job maintaining public order, whereas nothing about what ICE does requires them to act the way they do other than the appetite for ostentatious thuggery.
Please elaborate. Given the Resistance (TM) to ICE doing its job's increasing boldness and aggression, escalations by ICE officers are predictable, if unfortunate.
It's not a big problem anyway because the police have the ability it catch criminals without threatening their lives.
This assertion would be big news to every police officer I know.
Given that the cop deliberately created a dangerous situation by standing in front of the car, I do think it is entirely reasonable for him to bear the responsibility of accurately determining the risk of the situation he put himself in.
Isn't the job of a cop creating dangerous situations? Their purpose is legalized kidnapping of persons suspected of a crime or of impeding public order.
but it's just a fact that death is far too severe a consequence for what is a fairly minor offence.
I find this sentiment naive and disturbing in how widespread it is and how often it gets invoked by people complaining about police shootings. Enforcing any law, no matter how minor, will eventually end in a death if the person committing the crime is committed enough to not complying.
You more or less staked out my position, and the important point is that most situations involving self defense are hard to apply boilerplate to. Often each one is unique to itself. We saw this with Rittenhouse as well, his incredible trigger discipline rubbed some people as evidence that he was a madman, others recognized it as a display of calmness in chaos and good training. I am typically inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to the person claiming self defense, not just police, but also to someone who's in the opposite situation, that of being a driver being surrounded by a mob of people. It is very difficult to re-create from video the real world tensions and feelings that were being generated. Was the lady actually trying to kill him? Probably only she, the officer, and maybe his partner have any real insight, and one of those 3 is dead.
I think this is wrongheaded way to think, for one big reason, is I wish a lot of it were true, but it simply isnt. If Trump can't shrink the federal workforce, there is not going to be a deterrent effect. Federal employment isn't some high-prestige-low-pay proposition anymore. Its Mid-Mid. If you threaten the stability levels you aren't going to run out of candidates. In fact, most the lawyers and engineers I know that work for the feds basically got a huge pay bump and a lifeline out of failing careers in private practice to go federal. Those people aren't deterred by a few weeks or even months of interruptions so long as the civil service protections get them their back pay. If the AOC administration wants to hire 5000 new lawyers for the EPA to write crushing green regulations it will easily find 30,000 "underemployed" zealots to fill those positions, that, even if fired 4 years later, will have had 4 years where they made 30% more while working 50% less than they did at some PI or SSDI mill that advertises on billboards on the side of the highway.
The migrants issue is a little rosier from my POV. The fact that no laws were changed, and the border was significantly sealed AND people are getting deported I think does have a real incentive effect. But that is not some wrecker thing, its just actually following the law as written, and particularly with regards to border security, its what Americans have been asking for for basically 40 years at this point. The deportations are occasionally uglier, but that is just how its going to be when the majority of corporate media is hostile to any sort of action. I could, as a police chief, run an operation where my goal is to confiscate firearms from convicted felons, and the public perception of it would be largely determined by how the 3-4 local tv stations cover it. If they like me I'm making the streets safe, if they don't I'm racistly putting minorities in prison, and they will pick the appropriate video footage to so portray me (angry man with a gun vs. graduation picture of a guy whos now 29).
I do wish we could scare the Euros straight as well, I think they are too foolish for it though. They wont figure out self defense. They will continue to jail people for teaching their dogs to salute, or for complaining about their daughters being raped in impolite ways. Even the financial sanctions on the international court people wont get them to change their ways (just like the federal employees, its again a cadre of mediocrities making lots of money for doing little at all).
I dont think that is true. Anti-AA folks with say that is both unfair to the candidates, but also unfair to customers and shareholders. Particularly with government positions, anti-AA advocates have long said it is cheating the public. I do think that the sentiment that ignoring the output is a necessary assumption of the pro-AA side, or at least hiding it/ignorance of it.
What percentage of federal workers with a clearance are actually underpaid these days? The GS salary structure is not miserly, particularly if you are somewhere other than Northern Virginia, and the feds have often recruited for more permanent positions (places like the DOJ are often temporary places of employment for strivers and are outliers) middling candidates. Paired with stability of employment and the generous retirement programs and it seems like a good deal for a lot of them. Particularly given in a lot of these positions, maintaining clearance once you are out of government is not guaranteed and losing it would mean losing your private sector position.
It is not uncommon at all. Other than the standard fare of boyfriends and stepdads, a very common scenario is that the son/brother/spouse of a woman running one of these "home child care" places just abuses several of the kids.
It’s almost scarier if it turns out these are all technically legit businesses and the government was just this bad at not getting Dutch Booked.
Some of them are technically legit, and the people who work in child sex crimes units will agree that it is scarier. Although, not so much because the government is getting bilked.
This is why porn is dangerous; it creates such expectations in society, then normalises them, so 13 year old boys are now faking nudes of 13 year old girls for sexual gratification. And not a stranger or any random 13 year old, someone they know. Someone who will get the reputation among her peers of being easy, a whore, all the negatives that the "coerce women to have sex with men they don't want" posters on here like to throw at women. Creating expectations that she'll agree to sexual activity of some kind with random boys, because hey I've already seen your nudes.
I agree! The problem is porn. The problem does not lie with 13 year old boys using the tools provided to them to get quality fapping in.
The story is they took pictures already existing and nudified them. I highly doubt they were pictures of her wearing a burka. The point is not that their behavior was good, just that it is expected of teenage boys. Allowing some girls father to beat up your son because he did a thing that father would have done to your sister if the tech existed in the 90s is an absolutely stupid reaction.
Are you hardcore no-fap? Not that I think the dissemination and whatever other social stuff around this is outstanding, but obtaining nudes of cute girls in your high school would have been considered a high accomplishment for high school boys as long as high school and photos have existed.
Like with all porn the AI nudes are a little queer. Its much higher status and much better behavior to seduce her in real life, but some edits to an already existing thirst-trap image is hardly something you should let your son be beat over. I'd suggest the more appropriate action is the girl is removed from any ability to be online and the boy has to agree to supervised courtship if the girl's father so demands.
That is one of the main problems with consent as a standard. It does not hold up under any of the hard cases.
Most of these seem outright counterproductive if you want more children. People have more children when life is difficult and uncertain no matter what they do, and someone will probably turn out sickly or disabled, so you're best off having six kids and hope half of them turn into productive adults who can provide a buffer for the rest.
I mostly agree with this overall sentiment. The problem is family formation is delayed, which makes women have less than the number of kids they want, which if they had the number they want would be a bit low, but still high enough to not make our populations look like inverted pyramids.
So, the simplest solution is do the opposite of what we have been doing: shorten school, and make the shorter school a better employment signal. This means, High School ends at 16 or 17, and college is 3 years. Both having vigorous entrance and exit exams intended to mean only people who really need college go, and only those who are super qualified finish. Law and medicine would also be reformed to fit into this new system and you'd be done with those in 3 or maybe 4 years after HS. Oh, and because college entry and exit is actually hard again, fewer women will do it, which dulls hypergamy effects.
UBI is also impossible financially. Social security's minimum payments right now are about $21k/year. So just for the walking around money part 5.5-6 trillion. But social security is mostly supporting people who get free medical care and have already figured out housing and substantial assets to draw upon. Healthcare adds another $5 trillion in needed value to the outlays, and housing is another 1.6 trillion. Sum that up and we have total outlays of about 13 trillion for the UBI, approximately double the current total budget.
- Prev
- Next

Now you are inventing Jussie-Smollet like conspiracy theories to explain this woman's conduct. Just why? Its pretty simple what happened. A lady got in her car with the intent to disrupt ICE activity. She was so doing so. She then made a fatal error by accelerating her car and hitting a federal agent who was seemingly a bit trigger happy given his previous hostile experiences with vehicles hitting him.
There's no need to go into good/bad shoot, it was a meh shoot onto a person who created the situation with their intentional lawless activity.
More options
Context Copy link