FA+
Shop
3163
Views
Views
71
Favorites
Favorites
Category
All / All
Species Dog (Other)
Size 736 x 1089
File Size 160.6 kB
Report this content
More from Karno
Haven't posted for awhile, so here's something. Fun fact: This page was mostly inked by Brane's namesake!
Category All / All
Species Dog (Other)
Size 736 x 1089px
File Size 160.6 kB
Here's something I just found: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/blake.....b_6373798.html
According to the Huffington Post, police work does not make the list for the 10 most dangerous jobs in the US.
According to the Huffington Post, police work does not make the list for the 10 most dangerous jobs in the US.
Reading this, I am wondering. Do we live in a world of whimpering siddies?
I mean, do so many really feel threatened?
Rights and freedoms that took centuries, if not milennia, to get are thrown away. A country were a fromer president is (among other things) known for the quote (although he meant something different) "The only thing we need to fear, is fear itself" passes a law that allows the use of a firearm because someone 'feels threatened'.
If I had a different mindset, I would feel thretened by the world. By the logic of that law, would I be allowed to wipe out the world?
Just to claridy:
I do not want to insult anyone.
I am merely wondering and partly joking.
I mean, do so many really feel threatened?
Rights and freedoms that took centuries, if not milennia, to get are thrown away. A country were a fromer president is (among other things) known for the quote (although he meant something different) "The only thing we need to fear, is fear itself" passes a law that allows the use of a firearm because someone 'feels threatened'.
If I had a different mindset, I would feel thretened by the world. By the logic of that law, would I be allowed to wipe out the world?
Just to claridy:
I do not want to insult anyone.
I am merely wondering and partly joking.
From what I'm hearing, a lot of it is people misusing the word "threatened" in order to get other people to do what they want.
Don't want average citizens to be armed? Claim to be threatened by them having a firearm where it's accessible and insist it be locked away.
Want to hurt or damage something? Claim it threatened you so you don't get punished.
Want to control who lives next to you? Claim new housing for people you don't like threatens you.
So it comes down to manipulation. Find the words that provoke predictable reactions and use them to get the reactions you want. "Threatened", "trigger", "racism", "justice", "unfair", etc. The goals are short-term, so the long-term loss of meaning can be ignored.
Sorry to go on a mini-rant.
Don't want average citizens to be armed? Claim to be threatened by them having a firearm where it's accessible and insist it be locked away.
Want to hurt or damage something? Claim it threatened you so you don't get punished.
Want to control who lives next to you? Claim new housing for people you don't like threatens you.
So it comes down to manipulation. Find the words that provoke predictable reactions and use them to get the reactions you want. "Threatened", "trigger", "racism", "justice", "unfair", etc. The goals are short-term, so the long-term loss of meaning can be ignored.
Sorry to go on a mini-rant.
No need to apologize, many of us are sickened of this 'victim mentality' that the authority figures are using to cover up their own brutal 'thuggish' running roughshod over the civil rights of the people they're supposed to protect.
You mentioned trigger words and loaded language. I'm not sure i should be comfortable using the word 'thug' anymore, as it's becoming the newest code word for 'the N-word.'
Anyway, you're just saying what many of us are thinking.
You mentioned trigger words and loaded language. I'm not sure i should be comfortable using the word 'thug' anymore, as it's becoming the newest code word for 'the N-word.'
Anyway, you're just saying what many of us are thinking.
No need to apologize. I found it very informative, especially as I don't have as much insight on the USA as I'd like to.
I was wondering, because it looks like there is more fear around than back during the cold war and we were living with the possible end of the world on a daily bases.
I was wondering, because it looks like there is more fear around than back during the cold war and we were living with the possible end of the world on a daily bases.
In some ways there's less, but the combination of Political Correctness, Social Justice Warriors, "professional complainers", and the victim claim (I don't call it a mentality unless the person using it proves they actually believe themselves a victim by more than their words) make it difficult for honest, forthright, and self-responsible people to feel safe. So many people are looking for someone to blame for their problems that most people (and companies) are falling into defensive postures by default.
Considering many of the headlines I've seen lately about police using deadly force against 'certain people' who were 'aggressively' fleeing for their lives, or 'threateningly' lying face down on the ground with their hands behind their head, my first read-through had me mentally substituting 'that demographic' for 'dog.'
The reveal of the extreme police violence is just sickening. We were led to believe that Rodney King was a case of 'a few rogue cops,' that tortured a black man for fun, but now it appears that the 'rogue cops' outnumber the 'honest cops,' and the corruption is approved and endorsed by the politicians, with laws being passed such as the Chicago ordinance that makes it illegal to photograph or 'videotape' a policeman performing his duties, ESPECIALLY if it is done in a public venue, such as out on the city streets.
The reveal of the extreme police violence is just sickening. We were led to believe that Rodney King was a case of 'a few rogue cops,' that tortured a black man for fun, but now it appears that the 'rogue cops' outnumber the 'honest cops,' and the corruption is approved and endorsed by the politicians, with laws being passed such as the Chicago ordinance that makes it illegal to photograph or 'videotape' a policeman performing his duties, ESPECIALLY if it is done in a public venue, such as out on the city streets.
1. If you count the overly brutal cops against the normal ones, you will probably get a very low percentage.
2. It might be illegal to tape them performing their duties, it's next to impossible to stop it these days and if somoenone has some smarts, it's also next to impossible to prove who recorded it. You might get the people who posted it online, but considering how fast data moves...
3. With that many cameras around, their misdeeds reach us faster than anytime before.
4. I don't think the police does really understand how today's media (i.e. social networks) work and how fast they are. Today you can't wait days before giving a statement how the investigation of a cop hospitalizing or killing a suspect goes. As soon as they got the information from said cop, they need to do a press conference and put some news online. Even if is just saying that they are investigating the case. Of course they should work very fast as well. Meaning, that after an hour at best, they should have the cop's report and have it checked for gross inconsitencies. And should the cop be innocent, state clearly that there is no proof and no witnesses that the cop did something wrong. You have to spell that out to squash as many false information as possible. Although, if the cop did something wrong, they need to put that out as well of course. And yes, a good investigation takes some time, but from the looks of it, we don't have the time these days because... (next point)
5. Considering what happened in Baltimore and other cities before however, I have to wonder who the real raceists are. Yes, one or several cops may or may have not (I'm not speaking about Baltimore alone) done something wrong. They may or may have not been prejudiced. but demonstrations and riots before the police can even do an investigation? With no clear proof if the victim did attack the cop or not? Thousands, if not millions on property damage for something were no reason may have been for it? (if there can be a reason for it).
6.And as for the headlines... do we really need to talk about how they tend to pump news up out pf propotion somethimes?
Mind you, I'm not saying that there is no police brutality, but we should look at all sides from it.
As I said, the police should really consider how fast news and false information moves and how to counter that. Yes, that might well mean that each police department should have a news/online posting liason 24 hours a day on standby just in case.
P.S. What use is it making it illegal to film a cop on duty. Such a law only heightens the suspicion that something improper is going on. Idiots. And don't have cop cars cameras filming everything that happens in front of the car anyways?
2. It might be illegal to tape them performing their duties, it's next to impossible to stop it these days and if somoenone has some smarts, it's also next to impossible to prove who recorded it. You might get the people who posted it online, but considering how fast data moves...
3. With that many cameras around, their misdeeds reach us faster than anytime before.
4. I don't think the police does really understand how today's media (i.e. social networks) work and how fast they are. Today you can't wait days before giving a statement how the investigation of a cop hospitalizing or killing a suspect goes. As soon as they got the information from said cop, they need to do a press conference and put some news online. Even if is just saying that they are investigating the case. Of course they should work very fast as well. Meaning, that after an hour at best, they should have the cop's report and have it checked for gross inconsitencies. And should the cop be innocent, state clearly that there is no proof and no witnesses that the cop did something wrong. You have to spell that out to squash as many false information as possible. Although, if the cop did something wrong, they need to put that out as well of course. And yes, a good investigation takes some time, but from the looks of it, we don't have the time these days because... (next point)
5. Considering what happened in Baltimore and other cities before however, I have to wonder who the real raceists are. Yes, one or several cops may or may have not (I'm not speaking about Baltimore alone) done something wrong. They may or may have not been prejudiced. but demonstrations and riots before the police can even do an investigation? With no clear proof if the victim did attack the cop or not? Thousands, if not millions on property damage for something were no reason may have been for it? (if there can be a reason for it).
6.And as for the headlines... do we really need to talk about how they tend to pump news up out pf propotion somethimes?
Mind you, I'm not saying that there is no police brutality, but we should look at all sides from it.
As I said, the police should really consider how fast news and false information moves and how to counter that. Yes, that might well mean that each police department should have a news/online posting liason 24 hours a day on standby just in case.
P.S. What use is it making it illegal to film a cop on duty. Such a law only heightens the suspicion that something improper is going on. Idiots. And don't have cop cars cameras filming everything that happens in front of the car anyways?
"P.S. What use is it making it illegal to film a cop on duty. Such a law only heightens the suspicion that something improper is going on. Idiots. And don't have cop cars cameras filming everything that happens in front of the car anyways? "
The law only applies to CIVILIANS filming cops, "Hizzonah, da Mayah" (Mayor Daley, Jr. Like the Bushes, the son was an idiot compared to the father, or almost anyone else, for that matter.) pushed that law in when preparing for protest demonstrations about the G7 meeting, if memory serves (G7 is a meeting of representatives from the seven richest nations, to talk 'trade; and ;policy.' basically what the TPP is trying to do, but focused on the wealthiest of the wealthy, instead of being based on geography.) and he was concerned about 'edited videos showing police reaction to a violent protest while omitting the violence that sparked the police action.'
The law was never taken off the books, just 'inconsistently enforced.' The bad cops cite it when they think someone's got evidence of their misdeeds and they want to confiscate (and 'lose') the recording device that was used against them. The good gops completely ignore that law, after all, they're doing nothing that would be 'embarrassing' of it were made part of the public record.
The law only applies to CIVILIANS filming cops, "Hizzonah, da Mayah" (Mayor Daley, Jr. Like the Bushes, the son was an idiot compared to the father, or almost anyone else, for that matter.) pushed that law in when preparing for protest demonstrations about the G7 meeting, if memory serves (G7 is a meeting of representatives from the seven richest nations, to talk 'trade; and ;policy.' basically what the TPP is trying to do, but focused on the wealthiest of the wealthy, instead of being based on geography.) and he was concerned about 'edited videos showing police reaction to a violent protest while omitting the violence that sparked the police action.'
The law was never taken off the books, just 'inconsistently enforced.' The bad cops cite it when they think someone's got evidence of their misdeeds and they want to confiscate (and 'lose') the recording device that was used against them. The good gops completely ignore that law, after all, they're doing nothing that would be 'embarrassing' of it were made part of the public record.
*facepalm*
In short, we have a law pushed through by people that have no idea what someone can do with todays technology.
1. If someone wants to put out an edited video that makes cops look bad, they will. Is just a question of props, actors and the skill of manipulating videos.
2. Confiscating a recording devive... that can stream videos directoy to another location? No Sir, I did not record you beat the she shit out of that guy for no reason." The cop probably has not the skill neccessary to check a smartphone if something was streamed and even if, it's already too late as it's already out there and can't be 'lost' anymore.
And that's what I can think of without really thinking about it. Some people should really take a look outside their little world (of politics) sometimes.
In short, we have a law pushed through by people that have no idea what someone can do with todays technology.
1. If someone wants to put out an edited video that makes cops look bad, they will. Is just a question of props, actors and the skill of manipulating videos.
2. Confiscating a recording devive... that can stream videos directoy to another location? No Sir, I did not record you beat the she shit out of that guy for no reason." The cop probably has not the skill neccessary to check a smartphone if something was streamed and even if, it's already too late as it's already out there and can't be 'lost' anymore.
And that's what I can think of without really thinking about it. Some people should really take a look outside their little world (of politics) sometimes.
Few officials get that.
I remember a political party in Germany having a 'members only' meeting, but they did not do a good check on who attended. Five minutes after their meeting was over there was a blog online about the meeting. The Blogger sat in the meeting and wrote the blog.
I remember a political party in Germany having a 'members only' meeting, but they did not do a good check on who attended. Five minutes after their meeting was over there was a blog online about the meeting. The Blogger sat in the meeting and wrote the blog.
Comments