pusher_robot
PLEASE GO STAND BY THE STAIRS
No bio...
User ID: 278
True, but the original streetcar suburbs have largely been absorbed into the major metro areas they once sat outside of. The outer ring suburbs came after the construction of the freeways and the days of rage
Generally, if they're cooperative enough to unlock it for you, they would already have been cooperative enough to get out.
ETA: Much safer for the driver to smash the passenger side window.
For years and years, saying positive things about the US in certain fora was almost guaranteed to get a reply with this link: https://youtube.com/watch?v=wTjMqda19wk?si=IUMfHBNYz1GPtRdn
For better or worse, this is what a lot of people think of when asked to imagine how liberals feel about the country.
ETA: This and Howard Zinn's People's History of the United States
The convention should be that any person should be able to assume that someone will not try to murder them.
I look at the beggar and my immediate sentiment is, in a world that had its shit together this guy would be my neighbor. Not a close friend, necessarily, but a neighbor, someone on my street. What would I do for a neighbor who'd abruptly lost his home or all his savings or something?
Why, specifically, a neighbor? Out of sheer statistical likelihood, this is extremely improbable. He would almost certainly be one of the billions of people in the world you never met and never will.
And it's a small thing, but it's a small thing that they didn't dare hope for when they strapped in for another cold afternoon spent standing around on a street corner pleading silently for a pittance, and suddenly it's there in their hands. There's just no feeling like this, the feeling that just for a moment something fundamentally wrong with the world has been healed
I have a hard time believing any of this interaction you are describing actually happened, because this reads like fiction. How do you know what they hoped for and what went through your minds? You didn't, you're simply writing a morality play with yourself as the altruistic moral savior of humanity.
I certainly understand the impulse to want to make the world a marginally nicer place, but I do it by doing things for friends and family and actual neighbors. I do it for people I know personally who are more blameless than not for their own misfortune. Because I know in my bones that no matter how good the world is, yes, even in literal Star Trek Utopia, there will inevitably be some shitty people in it, utility monsters who intuitively victimize themselves of their own free will, and if I spend my time enabling their shittiness, all I've probably done is make the world a marginally worse place. The beautiful thing is my vision of ethical behavior also universalizes, because if everyone tends to their own garden as well as that of the people they personally know, it's only the antisocial who are excluded from the benefits of society, which is just.
Then why are the police told not to do it?
Health and safety
What does it accomplish?
Reduces lost-time accidents and cuts down on paperwork.
If it was reasonable for him to think he was going to die the second the car started moving, how is that consistent with the idea that it wasn't reckless to stand there?
Undertaking a calculated risk is not inherently reckless. If it were, police would never engage in any interactions. The overwhelming majority of people do not in fact drive their vehicles at police.
You don't have to be under arrest for a police officer to be able to issue you a lawful order to exit a vehicle or move out of the way. If you decide you don't want to, then you are obstructing and that is legitimate cause for arrest.
Often, police don't like announcing someone is under arrest until they are in custody or at least a controlled situation, because it tends to increase the odds that someone will flee or start to fight.
So, in the first case, it's hard to say for sure but it's plausible that this woman has been given lawful orders to exit her vehicle and not done so. The next step is forcible removal, which necessitates breaking the window if it is rolled up.
In the second case, shoving someone out of the way who is deliberately obstructing them is perfectly reasonable, and a lesser use of force than arresting then. The proximity of the bus is less than ideal, but mistakes are inevitable.
"As much as we can" logically implies "everything except what you need." It's slavery.
Is a volunteer at an animal rescue center a slave to injured puppies?
Is the taxpayer, whose earnings are confiscated to pay for it?
People who make money through business are not "exploiting" society and greedily stealing from everyone else, but contributing to society through providing goods and services.
That is no longer true in the current world of extremely progressive taxation and extremely profligate social welfare spending.
Define "cosmopolitan liberals", because I have also heard this over the years. Based on that experience, I think you are probably overreacting to a couple of oikophobes* (or, if you're on the internet, Europeans), who are themselves overreacting to some chest-thumping chauvinists with a highly exclusionary conception of American culture.
In my experience, it is most likely encountered as an argument against the claim that too much indiscriminate immigration alters our culture in undesirable ways.
Maybe the only thing I really can ask is what you can do to help someone who's clearly overloaded, but can't stand it when something isn't done the way they would do it, and doesn't know how to explain what they want?
My suggestion based on some limited experience is to help in ways they care less about but also take effort: if not household tasks like cooking and cleaning, maybe it's running errands and getting groceries, fixing things around the house, or maybe it's handling mail, bills, paperwork, and tax prep.
This seems delusional to me. They are dealing with people who are committed to using escalation as a tactic. There is almost no chance de-escalation techniques will do anything other than aid the obstruction.
I may have been one of the few people who thought that Buy'N'Large was one of the greatest human achievements ever depicted in film
Well, compare that to the situation where the police handcuffed a knife to the suspect. I think that in that case they did throw away a lot of legitimate interest in not being knifed by the suspect, and they shouldn't claim "he was a threat because he had a knife". If they are actually knifed by the suspect, you can charge the suspect, but the standard for self-defense against being attacked by the suspect should be stricter than it usually is--strict enough that police only handcuff knives to suspects when it's actually necessary, not when the main effect is giving a reason to shoot the suspect.
Suppose instead, they are questioning someone in their own kitchen, and the officers clearly observe a knife block within arms reach. They tell the person that they are under arrest, at which point the person grabs a knife out of the block and lunges at an officer, causing the suspect to be shot dead. Does the fact that the police could have asked the person to move to a different location before attempting to arrest them negate the self-defense, in your view? If yes, and the suspect knows that, then doesn't that give the suspect the ability to put the police in a no-win situation of either getting stabbed or getting charged with murder?
I'm not persuaded that chain of logic holds together. To whatever extent it was under control of the ICE Agent, it was more under the control of the driver of the vehicle. ICE could have avoided it by potentially being sure to stay out of any possible trajectory of her vehicle. They also could have even more reliably avoided it by simply sitting in their cars doing nothing. While it is true that self-defense may not be used in cases where the person claiming it deliberately (and with intent) created the situation in which its use would be necessary, it does not follow that a person is required to take every possible means to avoid the outcome.
Suggestion: don't sleep on county parks. I've found them to be very underutilized due to their lack of centralized (or any) reservation infrastructure, smaller size, and general emphasis on recreation rather than natural wonders. But while the quality is more uneven, some of the best places I've camped have been county parks.
If it's legally controversial, then sure. But the vast majority of people don't know much about the law at all, so their intuition about what is legally controversial is irrelevant. I don't consider show trials acceptable.
It's possible to do both, though almost nobody, including myself, is "cheering." Declining to be emotionally devastated is not the same thing as cheering it, at all, and I feel this may be where the failure to model your interlocutors is occurring.
That kind of makes a mockery of your commitment to due process, if we're just making decisions based on public opinion.
Do you believe that the officer should be charged, or punished in some alternate way? I'm not asking what you think the result should be. I'm asking whether you think he should even be investigated and considered for punishment.
My personal opinion is that this agent is too trigger-happy, possibly due to his having been attacked with a vehicle in the past, and that it would be appropriate to reassign him to different duty while he conducted psychological examinations and additional use-of-force training. But that's me holding him to a much higher standard due to him being a police officer. I don't think he should be criminally prosecuted or personally liable.
Time, place, and manner restrictions, applied in a viewpoint-neutral manner, have been repeatedly held to be fully compliant with the First Amendment. The First Amendment doesn't give you the right to scream directly in someone's face, if that would be disorderly conduct in any other circumstance.
So you really think that cowering in your home, as the cited person on twitter was saying, is a valid thing we should accept as a society?
After the government and media messaging circa 2019-2021, I think that would be an unequivocal yes from the vast majority.
People are regularly charged and very infrequently prosecuted. I have completely lost confidence in the ability of the judicial system to appropriately punish violence by left-wing agitators.
- Prev
- Next

Buy a boat and take it out boating. It will easily suck up any spare time, money, ambition, and desire. Bonus: you can wear a captain's hat.
More options
Context Copy link