quote: Among the most specific changes detailed by Mr. Bratton on Thursday, however, was the creation of a heavily armed unit to patrol areas of the city and respond to large-scale events, such as protests or terrorist attacks. Those duties are now often performed by officers drawn from precincts across the city who are temporarily assigned to terrorist targets, such as Times Square.
The new unit, to be made up of roughly 350 officers and to be called the Strategic Response Group, will be created in the coming months, Mr. Bratton said. Officers assigned to it would be equipped with heavy protective gear and machine guns, and receive advanced training in counterterrorism tactics and “advanced disorder control,” he said.
“It is designed for dealing with events like our recent protests or incidents like Mumbai or what just happened in Paris,” Mr. Bratton said, referring to the terrorist attacks in India in 2008 and in France this month, both carried out by small groups of men wielding assault rifles.
You bring support weaponry like machine guns to a protest, they are going to be used.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
STOP RESISTING. STOP RESISTING. STOP RESISTING.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
If income inequality keeps going the way it is going, the 1% is going to need those militarized police.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
An extremely dangerous precedent, and completely unneccesary. We already have SWAT teams to deal with situations like heavily armed/armored terroists. The fact they used protests and *terrorist attacks* interchangably is extremely disturbing and demonstrates the completely insane escalation of force used by police in America. There's absolutely no good reason to use a machine gun for crowd control. Ever. A machine gun has one purpose, which is to indescriminately kill as many people as possible as quicky as possible.
I realize, this being the media, they might be conflating "machine gun" with "automatic rifle", but the point still stands.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
ADVANCED DISORDER CONTROL PROTOCOL INITIATED
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
A police officer who murdered a 7 year old in 2010 walks free.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
THE INNOCENT HAVE NOTHING TO HIDE. THE TODDLER IN THAT CRIB WAS SUBJECT TO PROCEDURAL AND APPROPRIATE RESPONSE IN THE DRUG RAID GIVEN ESTABLISHED POTENTIAL THREAT TO OFFICERS. WE ARE NOT LIABLE FOR MEDICAL COSTS INCURRED DUE TO SEVERE SCARRING OF THE CHILD'S FLESH AND INTERNAL ORGANS DUE TO PROXIMAL DETONATION OF A FLASHBANG DEVICE IN THE CRIB DUE TO AFOREMENTIONED PROCEDURAL AND APPROPRIATE RESPONSE IN THE DRUG RAID.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote: Orignally posted by Dogbreath: An extremely dangerous precedent, and completely unneccesary. We already have SWAT teams to deal with situations like heavily armed/armored terroists. The fact they used protests and *terrorist attacks* interchangably is extremely disturbing and demonstrates the completely insane escalation of force used by police in America. There's absolutely no good reason to use a machine gun for crowd control. Ever.
Yes!
quote:A machine gun has one purpose, which is to indescriminately kill as many people as possible as quicky as possible.
No!
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It's my understanding that we probably have far more SWAT teams in the United States than we need. It's not uncommon to have a SWAT team serving various warrants, for example, that would a generation or two ago have been served by a few cops if not two-safely, no less. Taking into account the overall decrease in violent crime over time, this is inexplicable in terms of a rational response to a threat.
At the same time, however, personally I can't come down overly hard on cops as individuals or even smaller groups for this sort of policy. It's classic institutional creep combined with factors outside of police control (for example, the War on Drugs to some extent and, much less under their control, the enormous arms and equipment surplus generated by our government MIC).
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote: Orignally posted by Dogbreath: An extremely dangerous precedent, and completely unneccesary. We already have SWAT teams to deal with situations like heavily armed/armored terroists. The fact they used protests and *terrorist attacks* interchangably is extremely disturbing and demonstrates the completely insane escalation of force used by police in America. There's absolutely no good reason to use a machine gun for crowd control. Ever.
Yes!
quote:A machine gun has one purpose, which is to indescriminately kill as many people as possible as quicky as possible.
No!
What is the purpose of a machine gun, then? Obviously like any tool it can be used in other ways, but machine guns are designed to spray out lots and lots of bullets in as brief a time as possible with as many bullets hitting etc. etc. I admit I'm a bit at a loss as to what else a machine gun, in its origins or current use, would be considered a tool for if not as many kills with as little effort and time as possible.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote: Orignally posted by Dogbreath: An extremely dangerous precedent, and completely unneccesary. We already have SWAT teams to deal with situations like heavily armed/armored terroists. The fact they used protests and *terrorist attacks* interchangably is extremely disturbing and demonstrates the completely insane escalation of force used by police in America. There's absolutely no good reason to use a machine gun for crowd control. Ever.
Yes!
quote:A machine gun has one purpose, which is to indescriminately kill as many people as possible as quicky as possible.
No!
???
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Machine guns are capable of/commonly used for many other roles than "indisciminanite people mower" including squad cover fire, anti vehicle, the seals quite often prefer a short barrel m60 over a more traditional assault rifle (which by many standards fits the term "machine gun" btw)...so...yea...no.
You mischaracterize the machine gun and given your background I did not want to let it stand as an authoritative opinion. :-)
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
What was your mos again? Intel?
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Machine guns are capable of/commonly used for many other roles than "indisciminanite people mower" including squad cover fire, anti vehicle, the seals quite often prefer a short barrel m60 over a more traditional assault rifle (which by many standards fits the term "machine gun" btw)...so...yea...no.
You mischaracterize the machine gun and given your background I did not want to let it stand as an authoritative opinion. :-)
Except that covering fire works precisely because people don't usually like running out in the open and getting hit with lots of bullets, which goes back to the whole "indiscriminate people mower" thing. You either mow them down or you rely on their fear of being mowed down to keep them from trying to mow you down.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
we are coming up with definitions for 'only designed to indiscriminately kill as many people as possible' which rely on caveats that make it so that the statement can be made to apply to literally every weapon
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Perhaps an argument for indiscriminate mower being the -primary- purpose could be made, although I would disagree with it...but as the -only- purpose? Nope.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
that definition doesn't even really technically make sense as a primary definition of its intended use. it's not like it's a bomb designed to end the lives of anyone in its biggest possible radius or something
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, this promises to be interesting.
It's a silly nitpick. The very uses you describe for it are precisely because of the use of a machine gun-spitting out death at the point aimed. In any event I'm certain you know Dogbreath did not actually mean 'the only time a machine gun is ever used is to indiscriminately mow people down'. Let's say I have some rat poison-designed to kill mammals. Nevertheless obviously everytime I use it my intent isn't to poison all mammals.
The lecture was nice, though! What was your mos was a nice touch.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
Is there any legitimate use of a machine gun in the hands of law enforcement for the use of crowd control with live fire ammunition?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
As nitpicks go this one was fairly straightforward and unsilly, unless you are saying all nitpicks are silly...which might actually be true. I must confess that referring to my post as a "nice lecture" is a bit if a troll move bro...or at least someone trying to stir up some trouble. You tryin to stir up some trouble buddy? *squeaky high pitched Stewie voice* You spreading the crumbs of chaos, yea? Etc ad nauseam.
[ February 02, 2015, 06:26 PM: Message edited by: Stone_Wolf_ ]
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar: Is there any legitimate use of a machine gun in the hands of law enforcement for the use of crowd control with live fire ammunition?
This is a great question...with a simple & straight forward answer. ..
Nope.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Machine guns are capable of/commonly used for many other roles than "indisciminanite people mower" including squad cover fire, anti vehicle, the seals quite often prefer a short barrel m60 over a more traditional assault rifle (which by many standards fits the term "machine gun" btw)...so...yea...no.
You mischaracterize the machine gun and given your background I did not want to let it stand as an authoritative opinion. :-)
Yes, I have extensive experience operating the M240, as well as some experience with the M249 SAW (which I dislike), the M27 IAR (meant to replace the SAW in it's role as a light machine gun while still having the functionality and accuracy of a rifle, and which I like), and the M50. I've dug into a position with the M240 and set up fields of fire coordinating with with other gun emplacements in order to provide suppressing fire. This means you and another gunner both cover the same ~30 degrees and fire in alternating 5-8 second bursts, as the weapon quickly overheats otherwise. I have a scar on my hand from getting burned during a barrel change. I also have permanent hearing loss.
So I can absolutely tell you that when you fire a machine gun at someone, your aim is to kill him and everyone near him, behind him, and really in the general vicinity. They are not precision weapons. Your ancillary goal might be to lay down suppressing fire so your men are able to move forward without getting shot, but if they are dumb enough to stand up or reveal themselves then they will be killed. Often, they will be killed regardless of whether or not they reveal themselves, as people tend to overestimate the protection whatever cover they're using provides.
You can also use machine guns to attack vehicles. Unless you are somehow attacking an RC car, your goal is to kill whoever's in that vehicle. If you had any intentions at all of not killing the people in the vehicle, you wouldn't use a machine gun.
In the case of crowd control at a protest, if you use a machine gun to provide covering fire, you will be doing so to kill protestors, and you aren't going to be picky at all about which ones you kill.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: What was your mos again? Intel?
Nope. What was yours? Couch potato?
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: that definition doesn't even really technically make sense as a primary definition of its intended use. it's not like it's a bomb designed to end the lives of anyone in its biggest possible radius or something
Yes, it's not like I was commenting on the stupidity of using a machine gun as crowd control within the context of law enforcement buying machine guns explicitly for use at "protests", but instead was writing a one-sentence treatise on every possible use of a machine gun ever. I mean, you can also use a machine gun for propulsion if you're creative. I'm such a rube.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath:
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: What was your mos again? Intel?
Nope. What was yours? Couch potato?
Fair enough friend, fair enough. Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Heh heh, ok.
How have you been btw? I haven't seen you around here for a while.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: Yes, it's not like I was commenting on the stupidity of using a machine gun as crowd control within the context of law enforcement buying machine guns explicitly for use at "protests", but instead was writing a one-sentence treatise on every possible use of a machine gun ever. I mean, you can also use a machine gun for propulsion if you're creative. I'm such a rube.
My comment was more to where the caveats went moreso than what the initial comment was. As for machine gun propulsion, i hear great things about its environmental friendliness.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: How have you been btw? I haven't seen you around here for a while.
I'm okay...same ol same ol...disabled wife and two young children. ..it's a pretty good life.
Yea...someone quoted HPMOR and I loved it so I read it and just kinda fell back into the 'Rack...just like I fell away after EG the movie was so bad.
Thanks for asking...you?
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Great! I got out of the Marine Corps in December, got hired on doing cyber security for a DoD contractor and currently work with several Army networks here in Hawaii. It's only tangentially related to what I did in the Marines (VSAT satellite communication/radio communication/networking/collection/oh crap it's something that needs to be programmed/calibrated can you help us/carrying lots of heavy things and batteries and trying to keep extremely expensive equipment from overheating with an air temp of 110), but I had enough certifications and experience to talk my way into it. The past 2 months I've had the pleasure of working all day, and then working another 7 or 8 hours at night and all weekend on online labs, CBTs, etc trying to teach myself a new profession. I got CEH certified recently, working towards testing for CISSP this summer.
I have no social life and don't get out much any more, but on the plus side I'm making a lot more money than I ever have before and am posting here more frequently. I keep meaning to post a landmark (my first) about the whole transition, probably will today or tomorrow while my wife's at school. Maybe.
I read up to chapter 80 or so of HPMOR, then I got into Worm and was completely enthralled for the month or so it took me to read it. If you like HPMOR you'll probably love it, though I recommend sticking with it until arc 8 before stopping - the first 7 arcs are slightly weak (it was before the author knew where s/he was going with the story I think) and the author intends to rewrite them.
[ February 02, 2015, 08:01 PM: Message edited by: Dogbreath ]
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: As for machine gun propulsion, i hear great things about its environmental friendliness.
While it's true that guns emit surprisingly few greenhouse gasses (a lot of the carbon is left in solid form, as anyone who's had to clean a gun will tell you), this isn't taking into account the big picture: i.e, we have to consider the lead poisoning issue, both in solid form as well as some of the vapor released. I've also heard some of the ancillary effects (being riddled full of holes, noise pollution, etc.) are bad for local ecosystems.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Is there any legitimate use of a machine gun in the hands of law enforcement for the use of crowd control with live fire ammunition?
It depends on what you mean by "crowd control". I suggest that a sufficiently bad riot may legitimately be stopped by deadly force up to and including grapeshot - the theory being that allowing the riot to continue will kill more people than shutting it down right now, and what's more, the people killed will then be innocents trying to get out of the way instead of rioters trying to kill, loot, and rape. But this is not the same as a protest; which said, the purpose of a protest is to credibly demonstrate that "Hey, we've got a bunch of people here who are angry enough to come out and wave signs on big heavy sticks; wouldn't it be a pity if they got mad enough to take the signs off and use the sticks as God intended?"
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
CS gas is pretty effective for riot control if you're trying to end it as quickly as possible. If you've never been exposed to it before it's pretty debilitating, and it still sucks even after you're (relatively) used to it.
Granted, gas masks are cheap and easy to buy so a group of determined and organized rioters might be able to circumvent it - but at that point it's not really a riot, is it?
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Also, when a protest turns violent it's never the whole crowd all of a sudden deciding to turn into bloodthirsty maniacs. It's a handful of people start acting violently and everyone else is kind of stuck. Almost all of the "rioters" you would be machine gunning would be bystanders.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I saw a show where they used a sting grenade on a prison riot and stopped it in its tracks. Like a flash bang but with many small rubber bbs. The rioting inmates instantly fell to the ground into the fetal position as the rubber bbs apparently -hurt-. The show went on to explain that fireing pain nerves deflates mob mentality like a soufle in an earthquake.
-That- being said...
Unless in uniformed combat...
There is simply no excuse to open up with a machine gun on a crowd of people. Full stop.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
Yo Dogbreath I have an honest question for you, if someone was insulting of the Corps as a branch for substantiated reasons would you take it personally (and get offended) or would you recognize it as the interservice smacktalk that's generally rooted in some sort of legitimate point? (And only sorta pretend to be offended and join in)
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Is there any legitimate use of a machine gun in the hands of law enforcement for the use of crowd control with live fire ammunition?
It depends on what you mean by "crowd control". I suggest that a sufficiently bad riot may legitimately be stopped by deadly force up to and including grapeshot - the theory being that allowing the riot to continue will kill more people than shutting it down right now, and what's more, the people killed will then be innocents trying to get out of the way instead of rioters trying to kill, loot, and rape. But this is not the same as a protest; which said, the purpose of a protest is to credibly demonstrate that "Hey, we've got a bunch of people here who are angry enough to come out and wave signs on big heavy sticks; wouldn't it be a pity if they got mad enough to take the signs off and use the sticks as God intended?"
Has deadly force ever been used legitimately through the history of (semi)democratic governance?
I think its far more likely that it doesn't get to that point unless the government itself has lost legitimacy.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: As for machine gun propulsion, i hear great things about its environmental friendliness.
While it's true that guns emit surprisingly few greenhouse gasses (a lot of the carbon is left in solid form, as anyone who's had to clean a gun will tell you), this isn't taking into account the big picture: i.e, we have to consider the lead poisoning issue, both in solid form as well as some of the vapor released. I've also heard some of the ancillary effects (being riddled full of holes, noise pollution, etc.) are bad for local ecosystems.
lead is natural and i think we can probably get it labeled 'organic' in most states
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar: Yo Dogbreath I have an honest question for you, if someone was insulting of the Corps as a branch for substantiated reasons would you take it personally (and get offended) or would you recognize it as the interservice smacktalk that's generally rooted in some sort of legitimate point? (And only sorta pretend to be offended and join in)
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Is there any legitimate use of a machine gun in the hands of law enforcement for the use of crowd control with live fire ammunition?
It depends on what you mean by "crowd control". I suggest that a sufficiently bad riot may legitimately be stopped by deadly force up to and including grapeshot - the theory being that allowing the riot to continue will kill more people than shutting it down right now, and what's more, the people killed will then be innocents trying to get out of the way instead of rioters trying to kill, loot, and rape. But this is not the same as a protest; which said, the purpose of a protest is to credibly demonstrate that "Hey, we've got a bunch of people here who are angry enough to come out and wave signs on big heavy sticks; wouldn't it be a pity if they got mad enough to take the signs off and use the sticks as God intended?"
Has deadly force ever been used legitimately through the history of (semi)democratic governance?
I think its far more likely that it doesn't get to that point unless the government itself has lost legitimacy.
If you are referring to the government using deadly force then of course. Not what I would call legitimately, but certainly deadly force has been used against protesters - especially strikers - not so long ago in US history. I don't find it hard to imagine those conditions returning.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
The US government massacred a bunch of WWI veterans when they were peacefully protesting. So yeah its precisely my point that using deadly force against unarmed as "crowd control" is almost always going to be an illegitimate use of force.
The problem is that whatever moral or legal ambiguity there might be vanishes when deadly force with heavy weapons is the first resort rather than the last.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Is it a problem? I mean, sure it -would- be a big problem...if it was happening...
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
It certainly has happened and we are recreating the conditions - militarized police, union busting, income inequality - to have it happen again. One needn't wait till it is too late to recognize the warning signs. You know that whole thing about being doomed to repeat it...
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Is it a problem? I mean, sure it -would- be a big problem...if it was happening...
Three words.
Knock Knock Raids.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
boots...what action are you calling for?
Elison (SO hard to not use your old name)...a hi risk warrant isn't a firing squad.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
The problem is that is illustrates the growing escalation of force and violence of American law enforcement against non-existent threats; and then the ginning up of evidence to justify the excessive use of force retroactively; which will be met with growing dissent, protests, and violence ergo justifying the escalation in an endless cycle.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
A conspiracy dude? Lots of them? A systematic nation wide epidemic of police conspiracy? Really?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: boots...what action are you calling for?
Being aware. Paying attention to what your local city budgets are buying in terms of equipment and speaking up. Voting for community oversight on police. More community/neighborhood police rather than SWAT-type specialization. Support unions. Address income inequality by voting before it gets to the pitchfork stage. Support campaign finance limits.
It all ties together.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: A conspiracy dude? Lots of them? A systematic nation wide epidemic of police conspiracy? Really?
I don't think that what he suggest is a conspiracy; I think that it is just natural consequences. The wealthy and powerful get more wealth and powerful and want to protect that wealth and power. Military suppliers want to make money by opening up new domestic markets. Police want to feel safer. Crime rises with inequality so we (because we also want to feel safe) let whoever makes us feel safe do whatever they want. Plus, terrorism. Media want to get viewers so they overhype threats (fear sells!), ditto.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
It may not be what he meant but it was what he said...
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Also those things you are calling for...all good suggestions! Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: It may not be what he meant but it was what he said...
Where did I say conspiracy?
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: It may not be what he meant but it was what he said...
Where?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar: "...growing escalation of force and violence of American law enforcement against non-existent threats; and then the ginning up of evidence to justify the excessive use of force retroactively; which will be met with growing dissent, protests, and violence ergo justifying the escalation in an endless cycle.
Faking evidence after the fact to justify violence against innocents...sounds like a conspiracy to me. Especially since this a -national- problem...right?
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar: Yo Dogbreath I have an honest question for you, if someone was insulting of the Corps as a branch for substantiated reasons would you take it personally (and get offended) or would you recognize it as the interservice smacktalk that's generally rooted in some sort of legitimate point? (And only sorta pretend to be offended and join in)
I make fun of the Marine Corps all the time. Terminal Lance and The Duffel Blog (a sort of military Onion) are both pretty great sources of satire of some of the dumber stuff that happens. There was a pretty great article reacting to our former commandant (the worst we ever had, he's gone now) banning a newspaper from sale at the MCX because they published articles about some of the stuff he was up to: http://www.duffelblog.com/2014/02/marine-commandant-hosts-book-burning-8th/
quote:“Marines! The age of arrogant journalistic intellectualism is now at an end!” exclaimed Amos over the flames. “We are doing the right thing at this midnight hour — to consign to the flames the unclean spirit of the past twelve years. This is a great, powerful, and symbolic act. Out of these ashes the phoenix of a new Corps will arise. Oh Century! Oh Science! It is a joy to be alive!”
Good stuff.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Or are the police (despite being a local organization) -openly- attacking innocents, planting evidence after the fact...independently of each other...nationwide?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Try this: You have more crime. You have more fear. You have more police with weapons. You have more guns on the street. You have more not-so-justified shootings. You have more police trying to justify the not-so-justified shootings.
Again. Consequences, not conspiracy. Think it through instead of leaping to the most fantastic possible scenario.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I'm a literal guy...always have been. But thanks for the unsolicited advice! Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
So, you being a literal guy made you infer a wildly improbable scenario from Bla...er...Elison's statement rather than just taking it at face value?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I guess I'd rather point to a statement that is literally wacky and ask "Did you mean what this -says-?" vs "I'm sure you meant...something that makes sense but isn't what you said. "
To me that's presumptuous.
All I did was ASK...
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Oh and I'll start reading Worm tonight...thanks for the recommendation!
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Or it is possible the phrase refers to periodic local conspiracies, to protect an officer after a given shooting. The 'blue wall' business rather than some odd to say the least interstate conspiracy involving tens of thousands of police. Which, you know, happens. Given an institution that deals in dangerous situations such as policing it would be stranger if it *didnt* happen.
So, yes, you jumped to the most extreme and wildly improbable interpretation of his statement and 'asked' him about it in ways that were clearly not just questions.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I get what you all are now speaking of...assuming Bla...Ellison agrees.
However do you expect me to suddenly stop being literal...or simply let go without comment things that people say that strike me as wrong/needing further explanation...on an internet discussion board?
Me?
Really?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Not really, no.
For the record, though, no one took issue with being literal or with the idea of asking questions. In this case, actually being literal would involve reading what Elison said and realizing it offered several possible meanings, and then asking questions about them.
You seized on the most extreme and absurd meaning, and asked questions about it in a way that was as much making statements as asking a question. Not unlike 'what was your mos? Intel?' That's not just a question, it's also a clear criticism and challenge.
*shrug* Write off that analysis if you like, but I suspect not many would read what was written and see mere literalness and asking of questions.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I get what you all are now speaking of...assuming Bla...Ellison agrees.
However do you expect me to suddenly stop being literal...or simply let go without comment things that people say that strike me as wrong/needing further explanation...on an internet discussion board?
Me?
Really?
Except you're not being literal at all here. Let's look at how you commented on this thing you wanted further explanation of:
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: A conspiracy dude? Lots of them? A systematic nation wide epidemic of police conspiracy? Really?
Blayne never once said there was a conspiracy (even though you *insisted* he did, twice), nor did he say pretty much anything else. You pretty much concocted that entire statement yourself, and then once you were told it's obviously not what he meant, you insisted you were just being literal.
Your original question is a little condescending (if I was confused about what he meant (a frequent occurrence) I would have said "are you saying this and that?") but what's interesting is that now that you've been set straight, rather than just dropping it with a "oh, ok, got it! " you're being weirdly defensive and insisting that it's because you're just so dang literal minded. I can't really think how being literal minded would make you infer such a thing.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
Damnit Dogbreath we almost had a meme going about Me... I...? >:[
Rakeesh and kmbboots both are correct about the argument I was trying to make, there's a cultural trend building off of those incidences.
As an example, many people in the wake of a recent police shooting that took place outside of a dépanneur were completely convinced (I think it was quickly refuted) based off of some early tweets that officers at the scene swooped in to quickly plant evidence on the still-on-the-ground and injured youth. Why? Because of previous incidences where this did happen; or based off of general sentiment when the police routinely circle-the-wagons and protect officers who abused their authority or broke the law in pursuit of their duties; to get off basically with no consequence.
Then you get political, the FBI/CIA routinely attempt to infiltrate "radical" groups and then work ceaselessly to entrap the group into planning and carrying out terrorist acts, often these provocateurs are the ones who get turned in by the group. You see this during large protests where the police will send in plain clothed police officers to try to incite a riot so the police can swoop in and be justified to escalate.
This is on top of already "legal" tactics like "kettling", where they use phalanx like ranks of riot gear equipped officers and barriers to either divert (at best) the protest to trapping them entirely without access to food, water, or bathrooms for an indefinite amount of time. Many countries including the United States have embraced police state tactics when it comes to 'handling' peaceful protests.
The result of this is that protests unless very well disciplined will turn partially violent because of the police and their tactics, which justifies escalated violence which provokes further violence from protesters, repeat.
All of this is compounded by the police being given army/military surplus without adequate training plus an out of control "siege mentality" where police are convinced they are an occupying force in a foreign country and increasingly do not view the people they are ostensibly supposed to Serve and Protect as fellow citizens.
Somewhat related to this is a notion I had was that the US State Sec and government in general has created and empowered their own enemies. If you look for instance at the NSA domestic spying program and the allegations that come to light, up to and including the NSA wanting to put a backdoor into people's app's and services without consent; has created a huge demand for a solution by normal innocent people who nevertheless find such power concerning.
So encyption schemes/apps, TOR, VPN networks, secure browsing, and ISP's deciding to protect their customers privacy as a means of improving service... All of this ends up enticing the private sector to provide all of this, robustly, at a convenient price point for consumers... But this Also includes the terrorists the NSA wanted to infiltrate in the first place.
By casting such a large net either out of malice or negligence, by being so incompetent and opaque, the US government has effectively empowered their enemies and harmed their interests then if they had done the same at a far more subtle pace and with considerably more oversight and accountability.
You reap what you sow.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Sure my questions were loaded...and when are your guys' not?
I fully admit to being a pot...but come on kettle bros, let's be honest with ourselves about Elison's posts..he equates high risk warrants (legally issued by a judge) to indiscriminately mowing down protesters...then makes a sweeping accusation that nationwide our police force are preying on innocent people and -covering- it up...on such a large scale as to cause escalating violence.
And for the record (in my book) police planting evidence to cover up the crime of accidentally killing innocent victims a conspiracy . He made up the scenario...not I.
I never insisted he was saying it was only one giant conspiracy...
No matter how you dress it up I disagree that it is happening on any kind of systematic basis. Are there dirty cops? Yes. Always.
Are dirty cops a threat to America? Not a bit.
Boot's ideas were plausible, both in being possible & in doing good. What is the solution to the dirty cop epidemic?
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Sure my questions were loaded...and when are your guys' not?
Most of the time? I like how this is quickly devolving into a me-vs-them deal, as if we're some group instead of individuals just like you.
Look, if you want to start a pissing contest with Elison then that's fine, but if you continue to misinterpret what he's saying (and I think, seeing as everyone except you was able to understand him, he's not being that vague) and then refuse to accept the truth when you're corrected, then you're not arguing in good faith.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
The only one pissing here is you...pissing me off. I missed Elison's post as I didn't refresh before posting...
What in the world makes you apparently believe you SHOULD be attempting to correct people about what someone else is thinking? Or that they should accept it?
I accept (and asked for specifically) Elison's explanation of what he meant.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: The only one pissing here is you...pissing me off.
lol
quote:What in the world makes you apparently believe you SHOULD be attempting to correct people about what someone else is thinking?
Not what he thought, what he said.
quote:Or that they should accept it?
Because it's a reasonable and civil thing to do? Like, if several people tell you that you really, really misunderstood someone else, generally the proper response to realize they're trying to help you and acknowledge your mistake gracefully.
quote:I accept (and asked for specifically) Elison's explanation of what he meant.
Yes, and Elison's explanation happens to be "Rakeesh and kmbboots both are correct." Beyond that, the forum doesn't belong to you. Getting angry that other people happen to respond to and/or comment on question you post in a public forum isn't very polite.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Please...stop before the irony is palpable.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Because, after all, Dogbreath has been so discourteous. I suspect he probably didn't learn much of social graces as an intelligence weenie or something, right?
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Because, after all, Dogbreath has been so discourteous. I suspect he probably didn't learn much of social graces as an intelligence weenie or something, right?
I'm actually trying to figure out if he's referring to some past incident or what. There have been a few times when I've regrettably lost my temper posting here, but none is recent memory other than the France discussion.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Because, after all, Dogbreath has been so discourteous. I suspect he probably didn't learn much of social graces as an intelligence weenie or something, right?
I'm -not- the one claiming moral superiority.
And honestly...if YOU really wanted ME to improve you would stay as far away from the discussion as possible as you know you have almost no trust lost between us and let the cooler heads speak instead if popping up to stir up shit.
But then again we both already know your judgement when it comes to me is...shall we say...questionable. I, for one, would not expect my own advice to be at home in your ear.
[ February 03, 2015, 09:59 PM: Message edited by: Stone_Wolf_ ]
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Who?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Because, after all, Dogbreath has been so discourteous. I suspect he probably didn't learn much of social graces as an intelligence weenie or something, right?
I'm actually trying to figure out if he's referring to some past incident or what. There have been a few times when I've regrettably lost my temper posting here, but none is recent memory other than the France discussion.
To be clear...you have been quite discourtious in the past, and yet someone able to deliver such a curt rebuff as "was yours couchpotatoe" would later worry about what was polite...for me...for the whole forum.
If you really want sufficient high ground to be the forum politeness police than you better start being a hell of a lot more polite.
You don't get to get down and dirty with the dogs in the pit and then whine about what's polite.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Your question 'what was your mos, Intel?' Was both criticism and insult in the context. Given his actual experience at the way you attempted to dismiss it*, a reply of couch potato was frigging mild.
Not unlike they 'hey I was just asking a question!' Those weren't just questions and since you're operating on the 'who likes who' grading curve for how you interpret things, you should know that when I stick up for Elison's words, it's not going to be because I think his politics are just so rad.
*i admit the brazenness of your 'questiok' about speciality is still impressive. Someone from the military speaks from a military perspective with machine guns and not only do you dismiss it outright ( initially without even qualification), you go on to imply that he's falsely claiming expertise!
I don't subscribe to the idea that combat veterans must never be questioned, but even so I can see how that would 'mildly irritate' many and is in fact a deeply rude and presumptuous attack. But now we're back to the stonewolf special 'someone is being mean to me!' 'rebuttal'.
Dude, you never even said 'ah geeze, my bad man' about that intel crack. You're quite willing to 'ask questions' and God knows you won't be shy about whining when you think someone is being mean, but say something that turns out to be profoundly stupid and insulting and 'fair enough'.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
I have no problem with being questioned - i.e, there are probably many, many non-veteran gun enthusiasts out there with more knowledge of of machine guns than I. Nor was I an 0331 (Machine Gunner), and so I'm hardly a SME in the field. I don't talk much about things I've done in the Marines nor do I try and use that as leverage to win arguments.
I did make a light hearted comment attempting to gently highlight the irony of someone who's never served in the military, let alone had an MOS, condescendingly dismissing the experience of someone with 3 deployments and 5 years experience based on their MOS. Apparently that makes me the asshole in this situation. Oh well.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Your question 'what was your mos, Intel?' Was both criticism and insult in the context. Given his actual experience at the way you attempted to dismiss it*, a reply of couch potato was frigging mild.
Not unlike they 'hey I was just asking a question!' Those weren't just questions and since you're operating on the 'who likes who' grading curve for how you interpret things, you should know that when I stick up for Elison's words, it's not going to be because I think his politics are just so rad.
*i admit the brazenness of your 'questiok' about speciality is still impressive. Someone from the military speaks from a military perspective with machine guns and not only do you dismiss it outright ( initially without even qualification), you go on to imply that he's falsely claiming expertise!
I don't subscribe to the idea that combat veterans must never be questioned, but even so I can see how that would 'mildly irritate' many and is in fact a deeply rude and presumptuous attack. But now we're back to the stonewolf special 'someone is being mean to me!' 'rebuttal'.
Dude, you never even said 'ah geeze, my bad man' about that intel crack. You're quite willing to 'ask questions' and God knows you won't be shy about whining when you think someone is being mean, but say something that turns out to be profoundly stupid and insulting and 'fair enough'.
And I'm sure you are a fluffy teady bear but hey, we all have issues.
You know some times the by play is enjoyable, to be challenged to have your words and ideas withstand public scrutiny. But honestly I tire of the constant bickering. Perhaps that is why I stayed away for so long. I certainly waded into the thick of it with gusto, and yet finding my feet on paths I've tread before I think perhaps I'll try something else.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
For what it's worth I do apologize for the clearly outrageous comment. I have nothing but respect for those who served. I'm a bit of a miliphile, and always regret that my life didn't include that experience.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
Rock-Hound- you're kinda being slightly obnoxious over what was a misunderstanding. Like your kinda making it really personal when I don't think they or anyone else in this thread have any intention of being rude to you; but they do what you to address their concerns without turning it into this, thing? They are very polite and patient people, please just let it go and focus on the discussion, I've had a lot of experience to know that sometimes you just gotta assume you, in the words of Sun Tzu, said something in such a way to be misunderstood; and should repeat yourself and be clearer while also seeking understanding of their words and intent.
This is an internet forum, tone is not easily derived. (It's one of those stupid looking indefinate integral functions).
Edit: Didn't see your latest post. So you did that at least
#MarineChat: Dogbreath what had happened with me was while on teamspeak and reading up on news regarding the F-35 I remarked that the Marine Corps must be "the dumb pug dog of the US military" and they "were the reason the United States military and airforce cannot have nice things."
A dude I know got super offended about it because "He has family in the marines and has the utmost respect for them." granted he also accepted as abolute truth the notion that Obama is weak on national security because 'the US Navy is smaller than its bean since WWI' as something that makes logical sense. He went on to say that "If I said that down here I would be beaten to death" and other internet tough guy things.
I feel that if he doesn't actually go in and study the issue and just assumes that because I'm a LIEberal Canadian whose opinion can be dismissed then he's really being more disrespectful than I am since at least while I am speaking facetiously its at least based on some demonstrable truth.
Namely that Marine requirements for the F-35B (Whichever one has the VTOL requirements) is what single handedly caused the most delays, cost overruns and damage to the F-35 program. Further elaborated on a recently released report about the F-35's master testing program schedule.
And all because they want to be able to replay GUADACANAL the next time they gotta storm an opposed beach or something.
In full disclosure of course I don't seriously believe the US Military should dissolve the marines or something, as I understand it the Army version of what a marine brigade is lacks some things to do the effective marine mission and having a force capable of expeditionary overseas rapid deployment which has its own organic naval, artillery, air, and armour assets is more or less going to resemble the USMC so you might as well.
Its just that whelp. Urah!
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: But honestly I tire of the constant bickering. Perhaps that is why I stayed away for so long. I certainly waded into the thick of it with gusto, and yet finding my feet on paths I've tread before I think perhaps I'll try something else.
Before you go, I encourage you to look at all the other threads you haven't posted in on the first page of this forum. Many of them involve subjects that people disagree about quite strongly, but somehow they manage to do so in a civil and polite manner without 'bickering.' Then I would recommend taking a serious look at the way you post and the way you present yourself here and ask if you might just possibly be the cause of the bickering.
Also, I would strongly recommend evaluating your belief that anyone here really dislikes you, or that you have enemies. I've been posting here for 6 years and have at various points strongly disagreed with every single person on this forum, but I can't think of anyone I've made an enemy of. I did have an Arch Nemesis, but sadly she no longer posts here.
quote: For what it's worth I do apologize for the clearly outrageous comment. I have nothing but respect for those who served. I'm a bit of a miliphile, and always regret that my life didn't include that experience.
It's fine, I wasn't particularly offended by it. If you're still interested in serving you could check out the National Guard. My brother-in-law is in the Air Guard and he really enjoys it - you basically drill one weekend a month and get paid a decent amount for it. There are guys in their 30s, 40s, and 50s who are part of his unit and really enjoy the experience.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
Except my threads, you'll learn nothing there.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I'm not going. I'm just not going to engage in bickering.
Rakeesh and I have had multiple episodes which required mod involvement, and while I don't consider him my enemy per say, he really should kno better than to hop in and try to "help". Really. He should.
As to reserves, my life is currently incompatible with not being available one weekend a month and one week per year. I am the primary (read only) caregiver for my bedridden wife and four and five year old children.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
*nods* I figured as much. I meant, if you're interested in the future the door isn't closed.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar: Except my threads, you'll learn nothing there.
We can't all be perfect Blelison.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Hmm...cool I thought since I'm older (barely) than 32 I was SOL.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
28 is the cut off for the Marines, but you can get into the Army up until you're 35 and the Air Force is 39.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote: Rakeesh and I have had multiple episodes which required mod involvement, and while I don't consider him my enemy per say, he really should kno better than to hop in and try to "help". Really. He should
quote:eing literal...or simply let go without comment things that people say that strike me as wrong/needing further explanation...on an internet discussion board
Something something palpable irony. Always remember to lecture people for failing to adhere to your double standards.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Temptation lures its ugly head...no...must not snark...
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
I'm still trying to figure out if a 'questiok' is an intentional portmanteau or just a typo.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Typo. Been posting on a four inch screen with man bear fingers.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
TUMBLR WOULD HAVE YOU KNOW THEY ARE PREFERRED TO BE CALLED PERSON FOREST-LION FINGERS!
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
It was Rakeesh though
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Man bear fingers.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Anyway, I'm interested (eager, really) to see how the slowly deescalating War on Drugs will impact policing in the United States as time goes on.
The idealist in me is thrilled to wonder where that time, effort, and money will go if not thrown down a hole of drug busts and investigations. The cynic in me is sure waste and inefficiency will find a way. The idealist in me replies that even so, there is *so much* spent in so many ways on the War on Drugs that almost anything would be an improvement.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
can i delete this entire page of the thread
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
No, it was a helpful reminder. Leave it. Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: It was Rakeesh though
I just assumed by the use of quotes he was mocking my typmanship... Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: No, it was a helpful reminder. Leave it.
But you won't learn from it. I vote it off the island
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I won't? Awww,darn it! I thought I would. Well in -that- case...go ahead. Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
Another thing, its illegal in something like 12 states to film a police officer; so not only do they abuse their power, but in an alliance with "tough on crime" politicians are making it harder to hold them accountable.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
(I don't know if it was illegal anywhere 4-5 years ago, but it doesn't appear to be illegal now. That said, police do tell people not to film them whether or not they're in their way.)
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
That said, police *have* attempted to make it illegal, that is fought court cases and such. That I have zero sympathy or respect for.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
You are both right. Sort of. It is not illegal to video the police but it may be illegal to secretly record conversations (audio) if there is "an expectation of privacy".
Edit: ^^^ The ACLU's overly cautious caveat ends with the statement But no state court has held that police officers performing their job in public have a reasonable expectation [of privacy], so really, no.
You have a first amendment right to film cops in public. A few states have tried to apply wiretapping laws, but that's been overturned time and again by the courts, and even the DOJ has weighed in on it.
A 5 year old article from Gizmodo does not good evidence make.
blayne said 'its illegal in something like 12 states to film a police officer'
this is an incorrect statement and he's completely wrong
I said 'it is not illegal to film the cops in any state.'
this is a correct statement and i'm completely right
Police have no right to charge or detain a person for filming police specifically. If they do, get a lawyer and contact the ACLU and the press and force the police to settle for a lot of money for their unlawful action, regardless of state. It is legal to film the cops in every US state. They have no specific claim to detain or charge a person for filming police that would allow them the right to forbid someone to film them at will. Prohibitions on specific types of recording exist but are not specific to making it illegal to film cops in any state. The secret recording issue pertains to wiretapping laws and only applies if you are not openly filming a police officer.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
That would be more compelling, kmbboots, if it weren't for the link Elison shared detailing the sorts of recording he was talking about.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I don't need to be particularly compelling. It just want to make clear that it isn't as simple as, "it isn't illegal to film the cops". It can be illegal if you do it secretly and there is audio.
I probably should have said that you were both wrong but I was trying to be nice.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
So, I mean, I'm glad you don't think you need to be particularly compelling — but I have no idea what else I need to say about that blayne's statement is still totally completely wrong, not just 'sort of' wrong because — as you are essentially applying — there are ways to film a cop illegally anywhere. great, now apply that to twelve specific states as a general prohibition on cop-filming that blayne was asserting and you're good.
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I probably should have said that you were both wrong but I was trying to be nice.
quote:It just want to make clear that it isn't as simple as, "it isn't illegal to film the cops". It can be illegal if you do it secretly and there is audio.
Well, you could say this for pretty much any category of people.
If i said "it's not illegal to film six foot tall blondes in any state." and someone offered that I am wrong because it might be specifically illegal to do so under specific circumstances that are not in any way really related to a prohibition of filming six foot tall blondes, this is a crappy argument for the statement being wrong. Like you could say "well you're wrong because it's illegal if you do so while trespassing on their property, or physically clubbing them to death with a bone"
nah
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Okay. But you weren't completely *right* either.
Posted by tertiaryadjunct (Member # 12989) on :
That eavesdropping law specifically allows for recording police interactions in public. If it didn't, it'd be struck down by the courts just like the law it replaced. Nobody in this thread is talking about (in the words of an Illinois senator talking about what the law does cover) "bugging a squad car or listening in on a phone conversation at police headquarters."
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
The point I'd argue is that it's a pretty pedantic objection and if you wanted to argue the ~nuance~ of the law you should've framed the discussion as such instead of just laying down a general absolute of "Not illegal anywhere in the US nope." The point is something around 12 states do have "Mutual Consent Laws" where they try to pull the argument that even in public police can ask you to put it away and then proceed to arrest you if you don't; with people facing charges of over 15 years in prison for recording the police abusing their position.
That it's from 5 years ago doesn't negate that it happened and feeds into the narrative of escalating police abuse of power and increasing public distrust and fear.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
*sigh* Well, that was predictable.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
What was?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
The part where you were crowing at Samprimary and avoided copping to being wrong about it on a flimsy pretext because you don't like him. The kind of recording being discussed wasn't secret surveillance without the cop's knowledge, and you know it. We were talking about filming cops on the street while they were arresting or perhaps victimizing someone supposedly being illegal, and this being a sign of police misconduct in the present using a four and a half year old source.
It wasn't even necessary, because as noted police themselves do try and claim it's illegal, particularly on the ground versus in the courtroom where they have tried before. You could've skipped the premature victory lap and gone right to that.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
Okay, now what are you talking about. "The kind of recording being discussed wasn't secret surveillance without the cop's knowledge, and you know it." This has nothing to do with what I said.
"We were talking about filming cops on the street while they were arresting or perhaps victimizing someone supposedly being illegal"
This is what I was talking about, what did you read?
[ February 06, 2015, 02:38 PM: Message edited by: Elison R. Salazar ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Except it's not illegal, you stated flatly that it was, and gloated to Samprimary about it.
It's a short conversation. We were discussing the militarization of police and the way that can lead to tragedy in arrests and their interactions with citizens. You stated plainly that it's illegal in 12 states to film cops. Nowhere did you say *anything* about audio or secrecy, until kmbboots offered the out. In fact the four and a half year old source you used talked specifically about public recordings, not the sort of exceptions she referenced.
I mean seriously, man, you're smarter than this! I *know* you don't actually think that you believe it's a 'pedantic objection' to reply to your 'it's illegal to film' using an outdated reference with 'it's not illegal in any states, not just 12'. You're criticizing Samprimary for making an absolute statement in response to *your* absolute (and inaccurate) statement!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Pointing out how someone is totally wrong is now a "pedantic objection"
K
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Except it's not illegal, you stated flatly that it was, and gloated to Samprimary about it.
1) He didn't cite a source, am I supposed to take everything he says at face value?
2) It's still a point that its pedantic, because it doesn't change the conclusion of my original argument; swap "its illegal in X many states" to "police are trying to make it illegal" and the conclusion is still the same. If I claim "That X,Y,Z,W,R,Q,M, and P, all suggest ABC" and someone says "M IS WRONG!" it doesn't negate the rest of what was said.
3) If you have a problem with me taking an opportunity taking a shot to gloat at Samprimary remember that to me he goes out of his way to be a lying disingenuous strawmaning asshat. Yes yes, "I expect him to go out of his way to be a lying disingenuous strawmaning asshat but I expect better of you." I'm not saying I'm right, I am saying that's what goes through my mind when I see an opportunity to get back at him, that's the rationalization.
quote: It's a short conversation. We were discussing the militarization of police and the way that can lead to tragedy in arrests and their interactions with citizens. You stated plainly that it's illegal in 12 states to film cops. Nowhere did you say *anything* about audio or secrecy, until kmbboots offered the out.
In fact the four and a half year old source you used talked specifically about public recordings, not the sort of exceptions she referenced.
What the what? I *never* said anything about audio or secrecy, and I said nothing to do with kmbboots, what are you talking about?
Here's my post again:
quote: The point I'd argue is that it's a pretty pedantic objection and if you wanted to argue the ~nuance~ of the law you should've framed the discussion as such instead of just laying down a general absolute of "Not illegal anywhere in the US nope." The point is something around 12 states do have "Mutual Consent Laws" where they try to pull the argument that even in public police can ask you to put it away and then proceed to arrest you if you don't; with people facing charges of over 15 years in prison for recording the police abusing their position.
That it's from 5 years ago doesn't negate that it happened and feeds into the narrative of escalating police abuse of power and increasing public distrust and fear.
Where do I say anything about audio or secrecy?
I mention "mutual consent laws", but that fits under "video recording a police officer with a phone" like we've been discussing. Maybe the source I linked mentions it? I don't remember, but it certainly isn't something I claimed or said.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar: remember that to me he goes out of his way to be a lying disingenuous strawmaning asshat.
For some reason I read this as "strawberry asshat", which gave me an image of a man wearing a giant strawberry on his head like a hat, with a chinstrap.
I should probably sleep more.
Anyway, this looks like it's going to be fun...
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:1) He didn't cite a source, am I supposed to take everything he says at face value?
Wait, so your four year old source was right and Samprimary was wrong until he cites a source? Because you skipped a step. Gloating is usually in bad taste (fun as hell though, I'm not actually criticizing your wanting to stomp on Samprimary, goodness knows he is in no position to insist someone doesn't), but you need to be *right* first. Not flat-out (though understandably) wrong about the question of whether or not it's illegal to film police officers.
quote:2) It's still a point that its pedantic, because it doesn't change the conclusion of my original argument; swap "its illegal in X many states" to "police are trying to make it illegal" and the conclusion is still the same. If I claim "That X,Y,Z,W,R,Q,M, and P, all suggest ABC" and someone says "M IS WRONG!" it doesn't negate the rest of what was said.
He wasn't talking about your entire argument, which was built partly by the way on the idea that it's illegal to film police officers. If you want to build a house somewhere and a construction company tells you why it's a bad idea, citing drainage, sinkholes, so on, and also throws in there 'actually it's illegal to build right here anyway, there's an environmental concern' and it turns out they were wrong about that last bit...you still probably shouldn't build your house there because the company was right about all the other reasons.
And anyway, dude, *please* don't pretend as though you haven't been just as 'pedantic' in the past when someone disputes something you say by addressing one particular part of it. You know you have. I know you have. I have too.
quote:3) If you have a problem with me taking an opportunity taking a shot to gloat at Samprimary remember that to me he goes out of his way to be a lying disingenuous strawmaning asshat. Yes yes, "I expect him to go out of his way to be a lying disingenuous strawmaning asshat but I expect better of you." I'm not saying I'm right, I am saying that's what goes through my mind when I see an opportunity to get back at him, that's the rationalization.
*Now* you're not saying you're right. But look, reading this again, it's clear you dislike him strongly enough that if you had said the sky was green and he corrected you, you would still shy away from acknowledging it even if you showboated about it before being proven wrong. Which is pretty understandable, given how much satisfaction it seems like Samprimary takes in baiting you into just this sort of response, man.
I know why you didn't just cop (hah) to the point about filming police in the first place-because it's Samprimary, and you really really dislike him (and not without cause), and so damned if you were going to cop to it. But if you had? You would've completely fizzled his fun. Now he's got a show.
quote:I mention "mutual consent laws", but that fits under "video recording a police officer with a phone" like we've been discussing. Maybe the source I linked mentions it? I don't remember, but it certainly isn't something I claimed or said.
The relevance was that the only possible reason your point wasn't wrong (that point being that it's illegal to film cops) was if you had been talking about the sorts of secret surveillance that is illegal for anyone (except the federal government!), not just towards cops. But you weren't talking about that.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
I see Blayne is severely endangering his sterling credibility on the subject of US law and political affairs.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
Fortunately his charitable capacity to admit when he's caught with his pants down will prevent him from damaging his reputation as an intellectually credible source of discussion input.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
rakeesh i am actually sort of amazed at how well you are detailing this out in hopes that he just cops to it, or even just sees what is going on through your sheer patience in explaining
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
I think Rakeesh should join JanitorBlade and form an "inhumanly patient people" superhero group or something.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Ha! Imagining the reaction of many to that statement here is making me actually LOL, Dog, heh.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Me too! Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
quote: Wait, so your four year old source was right and Samprimary was wrong until he cites a source? Because you skipped a step. Gloating is usually in bad taste (fun as hell though, I'm not actually criticizing your wanting to stomp on Samprimary, goodness knows he is in no position to insist someone doesn't), but you need to be *right* first. Not flat-out (though understandably) wrong about the question of whether or not it's illegal to film police officers.
I'd forgotten I didn't post a source until after he said I was wrong; but he does do that a lot, where I post a source and then he'll ignore it.
quote: He wasn't talking about your entire argument, which was built partly by the way on the idea that it's illegal to film police officers. If you want to build a house somewhere and a construction company tells you why it's a bad idea, citing drainage, sinkholes, so on, and also throws in there 'actually it's illegal to build right here anyway, there's an environmental concern' and it turns out they were wrong about that last bit...you still probably shouldn't build your house there because the company was right about all the other reasons.
And anyway, dude, *please* don't pretend as though you haven't been just as 'pedantic' in the past when someone disputes something you say by addressing one particular part of it. You know you have. I know you have. I have too.
Perhaps, but I think those sorts of arguments I made are older then recent arguments.
quote: *Now* you're not saying you're right. But look, reading this again, it's clear you dislike him strongly enough that if you had said the sky was green and he corrected you, you would still shy away from acknowledging it even if you showboated about it before being proven wrong. Which is pretty understandable, given how much satisfaction it seems like Samprimary takes in baiting you into just this sort of response, man.
I know why you didn't just cop (hah) to the point about filming police in the first place-because it's Samprimary, and you really really dislike him (and not without cause), and so damned if you were going to cop to it. But if you had? You would've completely fizzled his fun. Now he's got a show.
Very well, I was wrong.
quote: The relevance was that the only possible reason your point wasn't wrong (that point being that it's illegal to film cops) was if you had been talking about the sorts of secret surveillance that is illegal for anyone (except the federal government!), not just towards cops. But you weren't talking about that.
Again, I only make the arguments I explicitly way out that are supporting in the text of my post. While it may be the context you think would make sense for me to try to claim isn't wrong but that isn't how I think.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
This thread is magical! Myself & Elison admitting we were wrong. Rakeesh admitting he was pendactic. Next Samp is going to admit he baits Elison. Then boots will admit to being grumpy. Then W will admit to losing to Gore...then...then...who knows what else...it's a brave new world people! BRAVE NEW WORLD.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
Brave New World was horrifying in its own way.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Never read Huxley. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
The original quote was Shakespeare.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
what even is the definition of 'baiting' anymore. does anything i've done here count as 'baiting' by anyone's estimation? by blayne? i also see i am a disingenuous 'strawmanner.' that definition has changed a lot too. does it still just mean what i think it means? am i going out of my way to be a lying disingenuous strawmaning asshat here? what do i have to add to my retinue if i am falling short in my sacred disingenuous strawmanning duty?
these are all sort of serious questions. i prefer critiques of samprimary to be somewhat non-abstract.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
I think perhaps expecting Blayne to subject himself to the same standards of rational thought and basic fact checking/adherence to reality that you would expect from anyone else is "baiting." I thought it was interesting that nobody even batted an eye at him resorting to personal and obscene insults as a response to you politely telling him he was wrong. Like, that just comes with the territory when debating him. Which is kind of sad.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
You are demonstrably wrong, for example any recent discussion about the F-35 program follows the pattern of me posting sources, quotes, and articles to support my arguments and then resulting in people arguing against a strawman caricature of my position and not even anything I actually said; or just resorting to straight up mockery.
The last time it happened Rakeesh admitted he was mistaken when he and Parkour claimed that I lied or made up the fact that I had quoted Orwell in support of my position; until surprise surprise I actually posted the link to the thread where I made the post with the full quoted and bolded text.
Rakeesh apologized as reasonable rational people are want to do, but I never got an apology from Parkour or anyone else.
I mean sure, lets just forget about all those times, I'll be happy to accept a "reset" of all previous posting history if it applies to everyone.
But I mean, did you suddenly forget about the first page and a half or so of this very thread where I did have a well thought out rational position that contradicts your thesis or are operating under rules where any sort of "constructive" posting I do shouldn't be considered least it contradict your premise?
Its obviously an unfair double standard and I have zero reason to react to it in any other way than complete contempt.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:when he and Parkour claimed that I lied or made up the fact that I had quoted Orwell in support of my position
You misremember and you have your characteristic poor reading comprehension. Perhaps you think that my statement was equivalent to what Rakeesh was saying. I don't have to apologize for that because I never said that.
What I actually did was guess that after you made your initial statement, you came up with the "it was a reference to Orwell" position as an excuse afterwards, when your initial statement was getting laughed at. Because that's the sort of thing you seem to do.
After reading the thread in question again I am pretty satisfied with that my guess is probably correct, but that it isn't something you'd freely admit to.
Not much of a dilemma though oh well.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Blayne:
Eh? What thesis?
No, I'm well aware that you also post rational things. It's just whenever anyone calls you out on anything or tells you you're wrong you flip out and start insulting people and using profanity. Like, just a few minutes ago in response to Rakeesh calling you out on saying some truly delusion stuff you replied:
quote:Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar: Do you want a fight? Because this is how you get a fight. Because that statement can go **** itself. Do you know what baiting is? That's baiting, because now I don't give a shit about the actual argument, I now give a shit about this.
You seem utterly incapable of handling adversity without resorting to the infantile posturing of a schoolyard bully, and this really hasn't changed in the 6 years I've been here. And normally I just ignore it and ignore you when you act this way, but you're now in the process of hijacking 2 threads I'm actually interested in with your behavior and I'm actually begging you to stop. Hatrack has already slowed down significantly in the past few years, please don't destroy the conversations we have going right now with your childishness.
Like, seriously, can you create a "Blayne vs. the World" thread for you to get it all out of your system periodically so we can resume normal discussion without worrying about you flying off the handle?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
i am having the strangest sense of almost a decade of deja vu
like this all just keeps happening, forever and ever, like a grand dance
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: Blayne:
Eh? What thesis?
No, I'm well aware that you also post rational things. It's just whenever anyone calls you out on anything or tells you you're wrong you flip out and start insulting people and using profanity. Like, just a few minutes ago in response to Rakeesh calling you out on saying some truly delusion stuff you replied:
quote:Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar: Do you want a fight? Because this is how you get a fight. Because that statement can go **** itself. Do you know what baiting is? That's baiting, because now I don't give a shit about the actual argument, I now give a shit about this.
You seem utterly incapable of handling adversity without resorting to the infantile posturing of a schoolyard bully, and this really hasn't changed in the 6 years I've been here. And normally I just ignore it and ignore you when you act this way, but you're now in the process of hijacking 2 threads I'm actually interested in with your behavior and I'm actually begging you to stop. Hatrack has already slowed down significantly in the past few years, please don't destroy the conversations we have going right now with your childishness.
Like, seriously, can you create a "Blayne vs. the World" thread for you to get it all out of your system periodically so we can resume normal discussion without worrying about you flying off the handle?
I don't fully subscribe to the notion that its in anyway the most advisable that when someone acts in a way I find unacceptable that you just have to just sit there and accept it to make it go away. That's ignoring the problem, not resolving the problem and what I do is to make it absolutely clear where my position stands, with no room for misinterpretation.
From what position can you ask me anything? You're not showing my respect when you make generalized claims about my behavior that yeah I'm obviously going to take issue with.
quote: You seem utterly incapable of handling adversity without resorting to the infantile posturing of a schoolyard bully
This isn't true. There are plenty of times I show restraint to being insulted or disrespected, today I just happen to lose patience because of specific reasons that I'll get around to respond to Rakeesh with assuming he's interesting in actually resolving the issue, I don't know yet, I haven't read his response if he's responded yet. But here's the thing, people can argue and disagree with me and have done it plenty of times without me "blowing up"; the only times it happens is if I perceive an insult; what happened with Samprimary was because of what Rakeesh said and I was wrong to act that way in that instance.
But there's years and years of people playing nerd pecking order games and I dunno if you go to sakeriver but the situation you describe never happens there even though people with similar personalities who act like jerks are there; its because I perceive that there I am treated fairly and a modicum of respect. Heck, I've been on Something Awful for something like five years and I don't have these issues there either, because there isn't years of generalized poorly remembered history distorting how we're interacting.
Like, lets go back to your contradiction, you claim that I can't handle "adversity" and yet there's a whole page and a half of Stone Wolf disagreeing with what I said, he misunderstood me but that happens often enough in arguments I have here that that isn't some special circumstance, but I... Don't overreact? I don't insult him? I'm perfectly reasonable.
But then look at for example the next 2-3 posts Samprimary makes after I apologize to Rakeesh, he's still trying to pick a fight. But I'm not bothering to respond to him though I almost did so. So again, there's adversity and me clearly not "acting like a schoolyard bully".
You're just wrong there.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: i am having the strangest sense of almost a decade of deja vu
like this all just keeps happening, forever and ever, like a grand dance
quote:Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar: I don't fully subscribe to the notion that its in anyway the most advisable that when someone acts in a way I find unacceptable that you just have to just sit there and accept it to make it go away. That's ignoring the problem, not resolving the problem and what I do is to make it absolutely clear where my position stands, with no room for misinterpretation.
Listen, Elison, I want to have a heart to heart with you here. Because I think this post is actually one of the first times you've opened up your thought process, and because I want to encourage and further this sort of openness.
I think there is a vast gulf between the tone in which your adversaries here make these comments you respond to and the tone with which you interpret them, and feel the need to respond to them with. Furthermore, it's entirely possible, and indeed even desirable, to make it absolutely clear that you disagree with someone without resorting to insults, rants, and profanity.
I don't believe people dislike you as much as you think, nor do I think there is any tangible pecking order to speak of. There are no discernible sides here. nobody knows what you look like, how you dress, how you talk, or even whether or not you're cool. All they know about who you are is how you choose to present yourself.
If you write things that are illogical or counter-factual, they will be treated as such. And perhaps denounced quite harshly. Sometimes even if you do your research and feel you have a well informed opinion people will disagree with you. And that's ok, it's not you they're attacking, it's your opinion. In another thread I started here recently, the majority of the posters who have responded to it have done so to disagree with me, several of them rather harshly. But I don't take it as an attack on my person, simply on beliefs I hold. I've agreed with those posters on many other topics, and probably will again in the future.
But you seem to take one or two posters disagreeing with something you said (and it was something pretty obviously incorrect) as "baiting" you, or as some personal insult against you, and you felt the proper way to respond to this was with insults, challenges and curses. You genuinely (I think) feel like you're being picked on and abused here, and I wonder if you realize if you could simply treat people with the same courtesy they give you (at first) and just admit fault gracefully, or even defend your opinions without getting angry, you would be treated with far less suspicion? As you pointed out, earlier in this thread you managed to do very well, so why does one poster disagreeing with you in a rather bland and polite manner throw you into a rage?
As far as Sake - yes, I post there occasionally and lurk frequently. It's something of a melancholy subject for me since I really identified with the community there and would love to be an active member, but seem unable to do so. And now (after the warm welcome and some personal discussions there) I feel like posting there again I would feel somewhat like the old uncle nobody's seen for 10 years showing up at a family reunion and chatting everyone up like I've been around the whole time - I'm just not sure where to start, really.
That being said I'm now working a job with a lot more free time - I work 4 10 hour days a week and complete most of my work in the first 3 or 4 hours, which leaves me a lot more time sitting at my desk waiting for more work and posting on forums. I'll try getting involved there again this week.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Just want to point out two things...make that three.
A) I'm the one that said Samp baits Elison...as a joke. But seriously, it has happened.
B) Careful to avoid a gangup. Too many voices can start up people's defenses.
C) Elison changed his name because his former name is his real life actual name. I don't think it's fair for people to use his real name against his wishes. I know I'd be pissed off if someone started calling me Mike after I specifically asked everyone to stop using my given name.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: And now (after the warm welcome and some personal discussions there) I feel like posting there again I would feel somewhat like the old uncle nobody's seen for 10 years showing up at a family reunion and chatting everyone up like I've been around the whole time - I'm just not sure where to start, really.
Well, let's do something about that. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:As far as Sake - yes, I post there occasionally and lurk frequently. It's something of a melancholy subject for me since I really identified with the community there and would love to be an active member, but seem unable to do so. And now (after the warm welcome and some personal discussions there) I feel like posting there again I would feel somewhat like the old uncle nobody's seen for 10 years showing up at a family reunion and chatting everyone up like I've been around the whole time - I'm just not sure where to start, really.
That's similar to how I feel about Sake, which is why when I visit, I mostly lurk. I never quite know what my point of entry is.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Blayne....take a look at what you just wrote there. the only time you act like that is if you feel insulted? So you feel that being insulted...or at least feeling insulted. ..makes this type of post and behaviors ok?
This isn't the first time you've been this way here. It's always someone else's fault you acted the fool...or threatened someone...
I am not saying that Samp and others are great people or never troll people. What i am saying is that you need to be responsible for how you act. If you were people would have less ammo to use against you.
Just my 2 cents worth.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Facepalm.
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath:
As far as Sake - yes, I post there occasionally and lurk frequently. It's something of a melancholy subject for me since I really identified with the community there and would love to be an active member, but seem unable to do so. And now (after the warm welcome and some personal discussions there) I feel like posting there again I would feel somewhat like the old uncle nobody's seen for 10 years showing up at a family reunion and chatting everyone up like I've been around the whole time - I'm just not sure where to start, really.
That's so interesting. For what it's worth, I really enjoyed your participation on sake, and when I saw CT's thread over there I was happy about it, because I assumed that it meant that you'd popped in.
If you were to start posting there again, I'm pretty sure that people would view you as a welcome old friend with interesting things to say rather than a weird uncle who presumes too much.
quote:That being said I'm now working a job with a lot more free time - I work 4 10 hour days a week and complete most of my work in the first 3 or 4 hours, which leaves me a lot more time sitting at my desk waiting for more work and posting on forums. I'll try getting involved there again this week.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
quote: Listen, Elison, I want to have a heart to heart with you here. Because I think this post is actually one of the first times you've opened up your thought process, and because I want to encourage and further this sort of openness.
I think there is a vast gulf between the tone in which your adversaries here make these comments you respond to and the tone with which you interpret them, and feel the need to respond to them with. Furthermore, it's entirely possible, and indeed even desirable, to make it absolutely clear that you disagree with someone without resorting to insults, rants, and profanity.
I don't believe people dislike you as much as you think, nor do I think there is any tangible pecking order to speak of. There are no discernible sides here. nobody knows what you look like, how you dress, how you talk, or even whether or not you're cool. All they know about who you are is how you choose to present yourself.
If you write things that are illogical or counter-factual, they will be treated as such. And perhaps denounced quite harshly. Sometimes even if you do your research and feel you have a well informed opinion people will disagree with you. And that's ok, it's not you they're attacking, it's your opinion. In another thread I started here recently, the majority of the posters who have responded to it have done so to disagree with me, several of them rather harshly. But I don't take it as an attack on my person, simply on beliefs I hold. I've agreed with those posters on many other topics, and probably will again in the future.
But you seem to take one or two posters disagreeing with something you said (and it was something pretty obviously incorrect) as "baiting" you, or as some personal insult against you, and you felt the proper way to respond to this was with insults, challenges and curses. You genuinely (I think) feel like you're being picked on and abused here, and I wonder if you realize if you could simply treat people with the same courtesy they give you (at first) and just admit fault gracefully, or even defend your opinions without getting angry, you would be treated with far less suspicion? As you pointed out, earlier in this thread you managed to do very well, so why does one poster disagreeing with you in a rather bland and polite manner throw you into a rage?
As far as Sake - yes, I post there occasionally and lurk frequently. It's something of a melancholy subject for me since I really identified with the community there and would love to be an active member, but seem unable to do so. And now (after the warm welcome and some personal discussions there) I feel like posting there again I would feel somewhat like the old uncle nobody's seen for 10 years showing up at a family reunion and chatting everyone up like I've been around the whole time - I'm just not sure where to start, really.
That being said I'm now working a job with a lot more free time - I work 4 10 hour days a week and complete most of my work in the first 3 or 4 hours, which leaves me a lot more time sitting at my desk waiting for more work and posting on forums. I'll try getting involved there again this week.
I'll be avoiding doing what I usually do which is quoting a post paragraph by paragraph, which usually is to make for clear discussion while making responses and counter-responses easier to read but I also feel lends an air of formal "debateness" that is inappropriate for a heart to heart "man-to-man" talk.
The most recent burst was my mistake, I'll work on avoiding that in the future.
But your wrong in thinking that there aren't people who dislike me as much as I think they do; there's a bit of a pattern I discovered in college/highschool is that a lot of people are initially put off by my personality and then what happens is that either they tend to actually come to find some aspect of it endearing (for example, bluntness/honesty) once they get to know me more OR, they doubledown on the contempt and dislike. I know this one person who would go out of his way to be a dick, he doubled down hard; in his case I think the straw that broke the camels back was how I often pulled a Cramer and asked my friends for change, I was friends with his friends and that's the closest I got to an explanation.
So with that as evidence its easy to see how over long term the pattern has repeated itself here and at Sake; Sake started off with a bunch of people disliking me posting there because to some extent they were actually at sake to avoid me but gradually as my writing improved I feel the same decision occurred. Either subconsciously they found some aspect of my personality interesting enough to find the whole package with caveats tolerable and a few double down.
In the case of Sake, in general the only one I consistently recognize is JT, whose responses range from the illogical to dickish; in a thread about writing he absolutely insisted that Mary Sue wasn't a "real" term and back handedly/passive aggressively said that "if I wanted to write only to troper audiences that my choice" blah blah despite the fact that several other people confirmed that the term pre-dates TV Tropes and is used regularly in literary analysis.
So from there, when it comes to responding to disagreement, let us please agree that there are, and will be times where the response ISN'T just "disagreement" but actual, real and not imagined, mockery, defamation, and caricatured strawmaning of my position by the actual use of "made up arguments" attributed to me (or refusing to attribute to me arguments I did make) arguments I never in fact made in that discussion.
It *has* happened, and as Stone Wolf says people baiting me *has* happened. And there are people who have in fact written that their goal and purpose in their interactions with me is to drive me from Hatrack; they have said this, it has happened.
Just look at the latest F-35 "discussion" almost done of the 'responses' were actually relevant to anything I actually said.
So its a matter of an interest in accuracy, I agree, when the disagreement is honest I need to respond better; but there are times where it frankly isn't even "disagreement" its just mudslinging.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
While I agree with much of the last post of the previous page I would like to suggest that people like myself, and I feel you as well, those who been picked on irl and have sensitivity when receiving criticism should be extra careful not to react harshly in response to when we feel baited but instead identify that feeling and request a break or a reword.
Golly it is hard to not lose your schitt...gets the heart pumping and the adrenaline flowing...
For one this technique protects us from being trolled and two it protects others from us making giant sized asses of ourselves when our sensitivities cause over reations.
Easier said than done.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar: I'll be avoiding doing what I usually do which is quoting a post paragraph by paragraph, which usually is to make for clear discussion while making responses and counter-responses easier to read but I also feel lends an air of formal "debateness" that is inappropriate for a heart to heart "man-to-man" talk.
The most recent burst was my mistake, I'll work on avoiding that in the future.
But your wrong in thinking that there aren't people who dislike me as much as I think they do; there's a bit of a pattern I discovered in college/highschool is that a lot of people are initially put off by my personality and then what happens is that either they tend to actually come to find some aspect of it endearing (for example, bluntness/honesty) once they get to know me more OR, they doubledown on the contempt and dislike. I know this one person who would go out of his way to be a dick, he doubled down hard; in his case I think the straw that broke the camels back was how I often pulled a Cramer and asked my friends for change, I was friends with his friends and that's the closest I got to an explanation.
I meant, people on this forum.
quote:So with that as evidence its easy to see how over long term the pattern has repeated itself here and at Sake; Sake started off with a bunch of people disliking me posting there because to some extent they were actually at sake to avoid me but gradually as my writing improved I feel the same decision occurred. Either subconsciously they found some aspect of my personality interesting enough to find the whole package with caveats tolerable and a few double down.
In the case of Sake, in general the only one I consistently recognize is JT, whose responses range from the illogical to dickish; in a thread about writing he absolutely insisted that Mary Sue wasn't a "real" term and back handedly/passive aggressively said that "if I wanted to write only to troper audiences that my choice" blah blah despite the fact that several other people confirmed that the term pre-dates TV Tropes and is used regularly in literary analysis.
So from there, when it comes to responding to disagreement, let us please agree that there are, and will be times where the response ISN'T just "disagreement" but actual, real and not imagined, mockery, defamation, and caricatured strawmaning of my position by the actual use of "made up arguments" attributed to me (or refusing to attribute to me arguments I did make) arguments I never in fact made in that discussion.
It *has* happened, and as Stone Wolf says people baiting me *has* happened. And there are people who have in fact written that their goal and purpose in their interactions with me is to drive me from Hatrack; they have said this, it has happened.
Just look at the latest F-35 "discussion" almost done of the 'responses' were actually relevant to anything I actually said.
So its a matter of an interest in accuracy, I agree, when the disagreement is honest I need to respond better; but there are times where it frankly isn't even "disagreement" its just mudslinging.
I only perused the F-35 thread I have to admit, but I think (going off this thread and several others) that you might be misinterpreting or even unintentionally distorting the intended tone of people's remarks to you. My point certainly isn't that everyone else here is angelic and incredibly patient and kind and non-offensive with the way they treat you, but rather you have a tendency of escalating things several orders of magnitude beyond what anyone else does. The cursing, the insults (like when you called Kwea a coward), the rants, and I really can't see anything that justifies that.
But all that aside, I don't think being "baited" is justification for that kind of behavior. And I think, due to past arguments, you have a strong tendency to assume you're being "baited" by what are by all appearances innocuous remarks. I can't really see any difference in tone between Sam disagreeing with you here and when he's disagreed with me on other topics: what may seem to you as curt, discourteous, inflammatory and dismissive, I see as an writing style that's intentionally truncated for the sake of clarity; and perhaps out of weariness for the parenthetical miasma of pleasantries, disclaimers and excess clauses that pass for "politeness" in conversation but becomes tone policing in practice. (A viewpoint I can sympathize with)
Or he could just be a dick.
But the point here is that expecting people to address you in a certain special manner lest you lose your shit on them (which you are known to do, admittedly not nearly as often) probably will not have the desired effect, and may indeed lead to the sort of "baiting" that enrages you so. Where it does occur, I suspect it's motivated more by exasperation than cruelty.
Anyway, what is remarkable is that you've never once become enraged due to anything I've said in the hundred-odd conversations we've had here (and I do notice and appreciate this, btw), and I *have* been unkind to you on more than one occasion. What do you think the difference is?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I re-read the f-35 thread. If that counts as unfairly 'baiting' blayne, then blayne will (obviously) sometimes write off practically any confrontationality that gets under his skin as 'baiting' him, even if it is well below a standard of confrontationality that he excuses for himself. Or even if how confrontationally 'baiting' you are being is in that particular instance less than the confrontationality he is expressing at the exact same time, which I can remember plenty of instances of.
So yeah I'm pretty much done with the baiting idea. I guess that leaves wondering how wildly inapplicably 'strawman' is used.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Can you honestly say in your heart of hearts that you don't expect/want/believe you deserve Hatrack to hold you to a higher standard than Elison?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I mean no disrespect to Elison, only referring my (hopefully correct) memory of past discussions that included that Elison suffers asperguers. If my memory is faulty I beg forgiveness in advance and retract all associated comments.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Just look at the latest F-35 "discussion" almost done of the 'responses' were actually relevant to anything I actually said.
I don't even know how you can justify believing this in the slightest, because the opposite is essentially true.
If you'll believe this about that discussion you'll believe anything about it that makes you the victim.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Can you honestly say in your heart of hearts that you don't expect/want/believe you deserve Hatrack to hold you to a higher standard than Elison?
When was the last time you saw sam lose his cool and start cussing someone out?
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I mean no disrespect to Elison, only referring my (hopefully correct) memory of past discussions that included that Elison suffers asperguers. If my memory is faulty I beg forgiveness in advance and retract all associated comments.
He doesn't, as far as I know. (Though that's something of a personal medical issue and probably not something we should be discussing)
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: So yeah I'm pretty much done with the baiting idea. I guess that leaves wondering how wildly inapplicably 'strawman' is used.
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: When was the last time you saw sam lose his cool and start cussing someone out?
Are presenting you evidence -for- my argument?
quote: ...(Though that's something of a personal medical condition and not something we should be discussing)...
It's not genital warts brah, a personality disorder is pertinent in this discussion. I am in no way, shape or form am I dogging Elison, I'm pointing out that different circumstances should be handled differently.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'm not sure how to reconcile the idea that discussing whether or not someone has a personality disorder is somehow respectful without running it by them first. Particularly if it's asserted that it's kosher to gab about it without running it by him, when they're in the conversation.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Fair enough. Elison?
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
I think he meant privately
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
That would have been better, but alas that ship has sailed.
At this point I feel I owe transparency.
However if anyone wishes to discuss anything privately with me, my email is public. Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Ugh, I can have to acknowledge the relevance but one hundred percent something like that is up to the individual in question as to whether or not to divulge or discuss it
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
Hasn't he divulged it himself before, to excuse stuff?
Anyway, it doesn't really make a difference to me. Blayne can or can not act like a grown-up, that's up to him. If he doesn't, then that's on him. I'm not going to accept low level autism as an excuse for him flying off the handle on a regular basis because someone says something he doesn't like or misinterprets.
It definitely makes for entertaining reading, so overall I don't really mind it.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
That's unkind. And inaacurate. Elison wasn't excusing anything. -I- brought it up.
Because I hold Samp to different standards than Elison.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Because I hold Samp to different standards than Elison.
Why?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Because Elison has Aspergers. Pay attention!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I have affluenza, I am also not responsible for my behavior
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I did not say I don't hold him to any standard. Just not the same one I hold you. Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Also...sorry to hear you are sick. . Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
I do have aspergers (I pronounce it with a soft g to be more dignified and British) and as a result get my college education entirely for free so I can prove it but I didn't raise it to defend myself here because I *know* and admitted as such that my behavior isn't right. But yeah, would generally prefer it not be discussed here. Sake is okay because I consider it more private and harder to turn up when googling my name.
quote:Originally posted by Parkour:
quote:Just look at the latest F-35 "discussion" almost done of the 'responses' were actually relevant to anything I actually said.
I don't even know how you can justify believing this in the slightest, because the opposite is essentially true.
If you'll believe this about that discussion you'll believe anything about it that makes you the victim.
Do you actually want to go down this route? If we do, do you agree to apologize for your remarks if I find even one instance of my position being mischaracterized? I mean even this low bar should be acceptable to you if your opinion is 100% factual and not exaggerated or dabbling in hyperbole in the slightest!
(Spoiler and full disclosure warning this is a catch-22/trap where heads or tails either way I win, because either you admit that there is certainly some level of mischaracterization going on or I effortlessly and trivially find one example of you guys exaggerating or otherwise making shit up)
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I do have aspergers (I pronounce it with a soft g to be more dignified and British) and as a result get my college education entirely for free so I can prove it but I didn't raise it to defend myself here because I *know* and admitted as such that my behavior isn't right. But yeah, would generally prefer it not be discussed here. Sake is okay because I consider it more private and harder to turn up when googling my name.
I thought that was your stance on the question, which is why I responded like I did.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote: Originally posted by Elison
But yeah, would generally prefer it not be discussed here. Sake is okay because I consider it more private and harder to turn up when googling my name.
My apologies.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar:
quote:Originally posted by Parkour:
quote:Just look at the latest F-35 "discussion" almost done of the 'responses' were actually relevant to anything I actually said.
I don't even know how you can justify believing this in the slightest, because the opposite is essentially true.
If you'll believe this about that discussion you'll believe anything about it that makes you the victim.
Do you actually want to go down this route? If we do, do you agree to apologize for your remarks if I find even one instance of my position being mischaracterized? I mean even this low bar should be acceptable to you if your opinion is 100% factual and not exaggerated or dabbling in hyperbole in the slightest!
(Spoiler and full disclosure warning this is a catch-22/trap where heads or tails either way I win, because either you admit that there is certainly some level of mischaracterization going on or I effortlessly and trivially find one example of you guys exaggerating or otherwise making shit up)
No, it's not a trap. Or if this is your idea of a trap, it's a pretty crappy trap.
It would be a good trap if I had said that there was no mischaracterization of your position in that thread.
(I would probably disagree with most of what you'll cry "mischaracterization" on in that thread, but I will put that aside for now)
Instead I observed that you said that almost none of the responses to you were relevant to anything you actually said. In reality nearly all of the responses were pretty fairly relevant to the things you were saying, whether they were criticism or people asking for your further feedback to substantiate the way you were wording things.
And my point is that if you can convince yourself that "almost done(sp) of the 'responses' were actually relevant to anything I actually said" -- which is plainly false, then you can pretty much convince yourself of anything when you feel sufficiently ganged up on. You aren't a reliable narrator for events that we can document and go back and read.
And if your response to this is "Aha but I can find a post where I was mischaracterized! Trap card ACTIVATED" then you aren't even understanding what I am saying here and I will be prepared in advance to just slowly shake my head at you.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I have criticized you in the past for not explaining yourself & just drive by snarking...
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)