ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
No bio...
User ID: 626
People will give so much grief to FCFromSSC for pointing out we have completely different values that will tear our country/ies apart, and then post stuff like this...
I'd also say that if you want to have a productive conversation, you should seperate the topics of this incident. Are we litigating the facts? Cool, let's not focus on a propaganda rag's coverge of a single video, let's pull up all the videos, including the one's from the officer's perspective. Let's pull up analogous examples that ended badly for the police officer involved, and compare how far the ICE guy was from meeting the exact same end.
Are we litigating morality? Okay, maybe you can do a compare and contrast with Ashley Babbit, like we did in the last thread? Maybe you can take another look at that video from the previous paragraph and explain whether you that officer was wrong for shooting? If yes, you could then go on to explain why LEO's should be expected to let themselves be killed, regardless of how recklessly a suspect was acting. If not, you could explain how the two situations are different, and what makes the difference SO OBVIOUS to warrant a massive wall of text of moral castigation.
Are we litigating whether politicians lie at worst, or stretch the definitions to the bounds of tolerance in order to score political points? Well, that one is easy, the answer is "yes". Have you been living under a rock?
In any case throwing all these topics in a blender and acting indignant that anyone might disagree is not going to be very productive.
Are people really so wrapped up in the culture war that they have lost empathy for a dead mother has a child who's six years old and an orphan because she's on the 'other side'?
I have lots of empathy for her. She's a victim of an evil political movement that lied to her about her country's law enforcement, and taught her to act in an extremely dangerous and reckless way.
Again: none of this requires you to think Good's wife, for example (!), or nearby protestors, or Good, are virtuous, only to think that the cop did at least something wrong. Something is wrong, and it's the attitude here.
Yes, and the attitude here that is wrong is yours. The cop did not do anything wrong, or at the very least the argument that he didn't is perfectly defensible. Stop shouting people down for disagreeing.
I'm a "the system works" kind of guy. This is not working...
Consider me officially flipped. Everything is no longer fine; the system is breaking
I dunno, I never seen your "everything is fine" shtick as genuine, it always looked like a cudgel to beat populists with. Flipping now that it is your tribe that's upset with the authorities only serves to reinforce that impression.
But of course the homicide rate includes domestics, bar fights etc
This is an argument for ICE, not against. Most people don't have to detain people (many of whom are violent criminals) over the course of their day.
I'm talking about perfect foresight, something that should be drilled into leos in the police academy
That's still pefect hindsight. The only reason you're acting like you know what should have been drilled into their heads is because you've seen the video and can analyze all the little things that could have been done to avoid this specific situation. It's not clear if your recommendations would run into other issues during standard police work, so I find it a bit silly to declare with so much certainty how this should be handled.
Yes. You get to pay for them.
Damn. I hate it when my attempts at being technically correct get out-technically-corrected.
The left has their mojo back.
I kinda see what you mean, but I'd be careful with these sort of statements. It's not 2016 anymore, when all this was new, so I doubt following the same script will yield the same effect.
I'm pretty sure we\ve had it for a while...
Or Europe...
It’s something weird here that is causing a massive amount of posts.
It's not weird, or at least nothing new for this forum. It's just the n'th iteration of George Floyd, Kavanaugh, Nick Sandman, Jussie Smollet, Kyle Rittenhouse, Richard Stallman, James d'Amore, etc., etc., etc. One side decides to ride or die on a particular issue, so the discussion continues more or less indefinitely, because no argument works, and autists keep banging their head against the wall in frustration.
But the entire dispute is whether Good used violent action.
Fine, they also tend to not defend pro-life activists that non-violently drive a car at the police, in an attempt to escape them,
This just goes to show how bad GDP is as a measure. There is no way this is correct.
If that is so, it should knock on the head the narrative that "she was only an innocent passer-by, driving home with her wife after dropping her kid off at school, a stranger to the city who wandered into the middle of this by mistake".
That should have died with the video from the officer's perspective, where they clearly taunting them.
Let's imagine there was no question whether he could dodge the car or not, that he was right in front of the grille. What would shooting Good have improved in this situation?
It could have minimized the time a friend of his would get dragged, if he got stuck the same way he did in the other incident.
I can agree that with perfect hindsight he shouldn't have shot her, but that argument strikes as kinda insane. How was he supposed to have perfect hindsight in the moment it was happening?
So does an eyewitness describing her as "very successful at blocking traffic" move the needle for you in any way?
And if it turns out she actually was pretty effective, and this moment wasn't representative of her activities on that they, will that change your mind about anything, or will we just move on to the next bowl of spaghetti to throw at the wall?
I am saying (implying) that if this was actually the case, we should expect him to have been trolling the last time he talked about starting a war for no tangible reason.
I absolutely disagree with this part, which is why I'm asking if you seen anyone claim he was just trolling about Venezuela. If not, that's evidence against your theory.
I would personally be pretty confident that I could get out of the way from the position he was in.
Everybody's gangsta when they watch a situation after the fact, in slow motion, from multiple perspectives.
I think it is excessively generous to frame the officer as actually being in danger,
Again, I think it only looks that way because of the ice factor. If the wheels didn't slip, he would get hit sooner and with more force.
There is plenty of room for deception, stratagems, collateral damage and psychological warfare even in non-existential wars.
Yes, but to a point. There's a reason why the "little green men" tactic was seen as below the belt.
N.B. I don't believe either of the examples you listed are examples of existential wars.
Yeah, though I think you can make the case that they were more existential to the other side of the conflict, which makes it quite apt for this analogy.
Did someone say he's trolling about Venezuela?
How "easily" is that, when he still got hit? And that was with the ice on the road making the wheels spin in place for a while.
Also, are you sure you're not moving the goalposts? You said he assessed a "currently unmoving car" as a threat, when he didn't do anything until the car started moving.
Well, again, can people like him start off with linking timestamped links to videos, pointing out to specific things that make them reach a particular conclusion, rather than starting off with an unbacked conclusion that later gets refuted by timestamped links to videos? I think this minor change in conduct would dispel most, if not all, accusations of intellectual dishonesty.
It's inaccurate and over the top. They probably should run it by some marketing / PR people to come up with a snappy term that's less severe than "terrorist" but still makes it clear she was acting with malice.
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)
It's interesting you see it this way, because from my point of you it looks like LiberalRetvrn just gets to make shit up, and to even respond we have to provide timestamped videos.
Do you believe your in-laws literally want you dead and your daughter transed?
I suspect not.
Wrong question. People love to abstract evil away into mustache-twirling schemes to deliberately do harm, so they never have to face the evil in their own hearts. Evil isn't doing a "paperclip optimizer" routine, but for double mastectomies, it's convincing yourself your cause is so good, that you can, say, lie to promote / defend it because the chuds would """weaponize""" the truth.
What you want to ask in the case of his in-laws is, if his daughter said she's trans and he opposed it, would they hear him out, or write him off as a transphobe? Or for the "want him dead" part: if the cancel mob came after him, would they defend his character, or throw him under the bus (or for a borderline case: squirm like Alec Holowka's sister, hinting at the truth, but refusing to state it outright for fear of the mob going after her as well)?

Yes, obviously. He's calling the police shooting at Good "murder", obviously that implies she should be able to allow to hit the cop.
More options
Context Copy link