Sunshine
3mo ago
The cop shot her after she threw the boiling water at him. This is clear if you watch the video in slow motion. From my perspective, it also seems like she was trying to ambush him as he went around the counter.
Here's my timeline:
-She picks up the pot.
-The cop backs away.
-She asks why he's backing away.
-He says he's uncomfortable being near her while she's holding the boiling water.
-She threatens to rebuke him in the name of Jesus (i.e. fling the boiling water at him). That is to say she threatens to attack a police officer with the deadly weapon she is currently holding in her hands.
-He tells her that if she does he'll shoot her.
-She takes cover behind the counter.
-The cop advances, ordering her to drop the pot.
-She flings the boiling water at him. It does not connect.
-The cops shoots and kills her.
I do not find any part of this flirty or funny. You do not joke about attacking people with deadly weapons. You definitely do not joke about attacking on-duty cops with deadly weapons. If you "jokingly" say you're going to attack someone with a deadly weapon and then you actually do it then you clearly weren't joking.
EDIT: To give this post more substance, I'm going to add a breakdown that I wrote for a reply further down. This is a timeline of events as I see them, which seems to demonstrate that the woman threw the pot of boiling water at the officers prior to being shot:
Tmestamps are from this video if you want to check it yourself: https://youtube.com/watch?v=U2rMB2fYjuY&rco=1&ab_channel=PoliceActivity
10:37: She clearly takes both hands off the pot and raises them above her head.
10:38: She crouches behind the counter. The pot is visible on the stove. She is no longer holding the pot.
The bodycam is briefly blocked by the officer's arm.
10:40: She is now standing up again and she seems to have picked the pot back up and is now hoisting it over her head. To repeat, she put the pot down, crouched down, took cover, stood back up, and then picked the pot back up again, holding it above her head. I cannot imagine any reason she would have for hoisting a pot of boiling water over her head except to throw it.
also 10:40: The pot leaves her hands. Roughly simultaneously, the officer shoots her. It's hard to tell the exact timeline of events, except...
10:41: The pot lands on the chair in front of her. For this to happen, it must have had considerable forward momentum. It looks to me like she had at least begun to throw the pot when the bullet connected. If not then it should have landed on top of her, not on the chair in front of her.
It's possible (again, hard to break down this 1-second period from Youtube footage) that the cop interrupted her throw by shooting her, which means it quite possibly could have had more momentum if he hadn't shot her. If so, it's possible that if he hadn't shot her it would have hit him and inflicted life-ruining burns. It's also possible he didn't shoot until after she completed her throw, in which case it wouldn't have hit him regardless. Either way, it's clear that she had attempted to inflict life-ruining injuries on him at the time she was shot.
Original unedited post begins here.
Since there seems to be a lot of back-and-forth on this point I want to add my take to what I see as the correct side. I watched the video in slow motion, and this woman clearly tried to attack the cops with boiling water. Boiling water is extremely dangerous and is capable of inflicting permanent disfiguring injuries. The woman attacked the cops before any shots were fired, and that makes the shots justified. Her death was her own fault.
Once you attack someone in a manner that could plausibly inflict a serious injury, they are justified in immediately killing you. Yes even if they're a cop. Them that take the sword shall perish by the sword.
It bothers me a lot that some people seem to expect cops to de-escalate after they've already been attacked. That's ridiculous. Cops aren't Superman, they can't just stand there taking unlimited punishment until their attackers run out of steam and then execute a flawless nonlethal takedown. Cops are fragile human beings. Any attack could kill or cripple them. Every weapon is a deadly weapon.
I would rather see ten guilty people gunned down by cops than one innocent person injured. There should be zero tolerance for any aggression of any kind, ever, no exceptions, the end.
Sunshine
4mo ago
Biden is old and gets tired easily, but he's not catatonic. I think it's an exaggeration to call his top appointees "puppeteers". By all accounts Joe Biden's determination to stay in the race is coming from Joe Biden himself, with the encouragement of his family and some yes-men in his inner circle.
Sunshine
4mo ago
Between this and the almost-assassination of Trump, which missed by a few inches, lately we're seeing a lot of incidents where history hinges on the actions of one man in the right place at the right time. Whether Biden drops out of the race or not will ultimately come down to his own decision. That's kind of amazing. The fate of 300 million Americans in the hands of one man.
I strongly doubt that Biden runs his own Twitter account, though. He probably has a dedicated social media manager. I certainly hope he does. The POTUS has more important things to do than maintain his own social media presence.
Sunshine
4mo ago
This is my feeling as well. This isn't a good thing, and in a perfect society it would never happen to anyone. We don't live in a perfect society, though, and right now the left wing has no incentive to compromise on cancel culture. They need to be given that incentive if they're going to be persuaded to stop. You can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs, and you can't negotiate a peace treaty if you never win any battles.
DeSantis seems like the obvious choice. He was in second place for most of the primary, and there isn't much time left to build up name recognition. He's also basically Trump lite. I think he could easily coast to victory on the outrage over the murder of a Presidential candidate.
Sunshine
4mo ago
This article took me on a journey. When I began I couldn't remember who David Gerard is. When I reached the end, I remembered why I hate David Gerard so much.
There's a limit to how many people you can brand as enemies of the Republic. If you don't get rid of every single Republican candidate in every single competitive state then your supporters are going to lose their re-election campaigns in the face of the backlash from your massively unpopular campaign of state-sanctioned murder. Either you kill too many and your supporters turn on you for going too far or you don't kill enough and your supporters turn on you for fucking over their re-election campaigns.
There's a reason that the standard practice is to abolish free elections and purge political opponents simultaneously. If you don't do both at the same time then you get kicked out in short order. And I don't think this one Supreme Court ruling all by itself is enough to overthrow the whole American democracy.
Sunshine
4mo ago
I think that after the first few murders Biden's own House and Senate Democrats would join with the Republicans and vote to impeach him. Whatever you think about the Democrats, most of them would be extremely uncomfortable living in a dictatorship ruled by fear and tyranny.
Sunshine
4mo ago
Don't constitutional amendments require a two-thirds majority of the House, the Senate, and the States? In the current state of gridlock, I'd be shocked if the either party could get enough votes to pass a constitutional amendment banning elected representatives from eating babies while urinating on the flag on the 4th of July.
Well, not to put too fine a point on it, but when the Roman Republic tried that they descended into a series of bloody civil wars. Once prosecuting ex-politicians was on the table, their leaders realized that letting go of power meant being at the mercy of their successors. The inescapable conclusion was that the only thing to do was to never, ever let go of power. Eventually they emerged as an Empire ruled by a succession of military strongmen.
So that's one reason.
What you're describing would result in the end of the Democratic Party as a viable political institution. Carrying out a purge while not doing anything to lock in your power after the fact is entirely backwards. The stain of having murdered so many top officials in such a public way would never wash out, the Democrats would never win another election, and the demands of the First-Past-the-Post voting system would mean that anyone in the party who has any political aspirations whatsoever (so, all of them) would have to denounce the party and quit to form a new one.
The end result would be the rise of a new party, maybe called the Liberal Party or the Reform Party or something like that. However, since anyone with name recognition would also be irreversibly connected to the infamous killing spree of the 2020's, the Republicans would probably win the next 5 or so elections while the new party builds up new leadership.
That's assuming that the Army, CIA, and FBI all manage to restrain themselves from carrying out a coup d'état, which, in the face of the backlash from the aforementioned infamous killing spree, would probably have overwhelming popular support.
So, by now everyone has heard about Biden's lackluster performance in the debate.
I don't want to talk about Biden. I want to talk about the fact that everybody has heard about it. There has been very little effort to suppress it.
If CNN, the NYT, and Time Magazine, and the rest had all held ranks and denied everything, this would probably have blown over. Most people didn't even watch the debate. Those who did could be persuaded to remember it differently. The general public isn't reacting to the debate, they're reacting to the reaction to the debate. Let's face it, this isn't the first time Biden has had a senior moment in public. This was unusually public and unusually difficult to edit around, but it's just a difference in scope, not a difference in kind. The media could easily have put the spotlight on Trump's deranged rambling about abortion clinics murdering babies, or that time he said that under his Presidency America had all the H2O.
Instead, CNN started openly freaking out the moment the debate was over. Prominent Democrats were apparently sending frantic texts to prominent journalists even before it ended. The NYT is openly speculating about replacing Biden. Time Magazine's new cover shows Biden wandering off the page with the caption: 'panic'. They didn't have to do this.
What I find interesting about this isn't the fact that Biden made his biggest gaffe yet. What I find interesting is that everyone broke ranks at once.
That's not necessarily surprising. Nobody wants to be the last person trying to hold the line after everyone else has run away. Still, it was so fast it almost looked coordinated. Were prominent figures prepared for something like this to happen? Were certain powerful individuals thinking to themselves, 'If Biden really acts his age during the debate, we might get the chance to replace him'? Could this perhaps have been the reason that this debate was scheduled unusually early - scheduled, in fact, before the convention where Biden is expected to be formally nominated by the party? Perhaps to give them a reason to nominate someone else?
Even if it wasn't, I think it's obvious that a lot of people have been thinking about this for a long time. If they hadn't, they wouldn't have all suddenly found themselves on the same page.
I don't understand why so many people seem to believe that Nazis have some kind of mystical totemic powers that make them an ever-present threat far beyond their actual material capacity. Like if 100 people do the Nazi salute at midnight, they'll be empowered with the strength of a hundred thousand Panzers, instantly overthrow their government, and invade Poland.
"...the thought of a trained, professional Nazi brigade with combat experience being armed with weapons and given legitimacy scares the shit out of me. What is the US thinking? What is their endgame? In the scenario that Ukraine is able to survive, do they think they can easily do away with the Brigade?"
The Azov Brigade is made up of 900-2,500 soldiers. The Ukrainian Army has 170,000 soldiers. Why, exactly, do you think the Azov Brigade is such a threat? Just because they're Neo-Nazis? That's it? Being Neo-Nazis grants them the superhuman power of the Ubermensch, and with it the ability to sweep aside an army 100 times their size? Do you think that Neo-Nazism is such an appealing ideology that if they ever get the tiniest shred of power then everyone in the Ukraine will instantly convert to become card-carrying Nazis - and, after that, the world, since apparently this is a threat that the US State Department should take seriously?
People who get performatively afraid of the rising threat of Nazism remind me of those homophobic Christians who are obviously in the closet. "Everyone knows that all men are sexually attracted to other men, and the only thing stopping us from getting hot and heavy with those beautiful, chiseled male bodies is the threat of eternal damnation. That's why we can never allow any homosexual sex, ever - it's too tempting! No one could resist the siren song of gay sex if it were an option! It would destroy the family!"
Do you think the only thing protecting us from the overwhelming power and appeal of the Nazi ideology is ruthless, constant suppression? Do you think that Nazism is so appealing, so powerful, so effective, that all it takes is one active Neo-Nazi group and a handful of guns to threaten the most powerful nations on Earth? Because if so I think you might be a Nazi.
I think of Nazism as nothing but a minor historical ideology that held sway for a little more than a decade, in one country, eighty years ago. They were ineffectual rulers who only managed to start and then subsequently lose a war before being deposed. Granted, it was a pretty big war. The thought of some guys in another country cosplaying as Nazis doesn't concern me any more than the thought of some guys in another country cosplaying as Jacobins.
I feel like you're trying to lead into some kind of "da joos" point, but if anything prominent Jews in the media have been unusually likely to break ranks lately. Between the increasing emphasis on race and the heating up of the Israel/Palestine conflict it's been a difficult few years to be a high-profile left-wing Jew.
Demographically I would say the people I'm talking about are disproportionately white women, but aside from that they tend to be pretty ethnically diverse.
Sunshine
5mo ago
The beginning of the Imperial period was marked by an unusually long period of peace and prosperity thanks to the long reign of Augustus. By contrast, the end of the Republican period was dominated by Romans fighting Romans in a series of bloody civil wars. It turns out that having one military strongman in charge of the polity works a lot better than having two competing military strongmen fighting over the polity.
The violence of the late Republic started long before the Imperial period. It started when extremist Roman partisans decided that their political ideologies were more important than unity and started using whatever means necessary to win - like exploiting the criminal justice system to attack their political opponents. Sound familiar?
"he might be worth nominating for another term"
Do you sincerely believe that? If Trump had been a gracious loser, would you have personally voted for him? If Trump had been a gracious loser, do you think that would make him a better candidate than Biden? (After all, Biden hasn't been a gracious winner).
If not, I must call this out as a false equivalence. I don't think you're being sincere in this statement.
The fact of the matter is that the small group of American leftists who dominate our media and communications is consumed by its hatred for the right wing. The airwaves and Internet are controlled by a small group of people who cannot restrain themselves from broadcasting their irrepressible hatred for half the population 24/7, and that's exactly why we're all in this mess. There is no peaceful future as long as that nonstop firehose of visceral hatred keeps flowing through every media outlet.
For there to be peace, the media class needs to let go of that hatred.
Sunshine
5mo ago
I feel like it would be an improvement over the first term if he manages to fully staff his administration with people who are willing to at least pretend to be on his side.
Sunshine
6mo ago
That depends on what you mean by 'succeeding.' Trump went into his first term with no plan for how to staff his administration. As I see it, the main goal of Project 2025 is just to work on that stuff in advance so that if Trump wins another term he won't have to start from scratch the day after the election. Will it revolutionize the US government forever? No. But at least this time he'll have a list of names he can draw from to fill government positions with loyalists.
And they don't really have to be competent. It would be an improvement over the first term if the bureaucracy was just not actively working against Trump's administration.
I don't know the full extent of what Israel's intelligence services do for the west because they obviously don't advertise it. We know that they have one of the largest and best-funded intelligence services in the world. Whatever it is they do with that money, Joe Biden clearly thinks the USA is getting their money's worth.
Since all of this stuff is top-secret one of the only things I can point to is a joke from an old British TV show. Yes, Minister and its sequel series Yes, Prime Minister were infamous for portraying the government of Britain so accurately that the actual government thought the show's writers had a spy on the inside feeding them stories. Yes, Prime Minister once did a joke about the British Foreign Office hiding strategic intelligence from the PM, and the Israeli ambassador passing that same intelligence to the PM in a secret meeting.
That's just a script from an old TV show, of course. But it's not like Mossad is going to come out and explain what they do for the governments of the west in exchange for all that money. All we can say is that whatever it is they do, the governments of the west are apparently satisfied with their performance.
Military aid to Israel is not actually about justice, though. Politicians prefer to pretend that their acts of rational realpolitik are justified, but they make their decisions based (mostly) on strategy.
The west in general and the USA in particular have several key interests in the region, like the Suez Canal. Israeli intelligence and military power are useful leverage on those interests. Back when he was a senator, Joe Biden famously said Israeli aid is the best investment the USA makes and that if Israel did not exist, America would have to create it to preserve its interests.
I think the Trump strategy is to gamble everything on a big win in the upcoming elections. It's a bit reckless, but it's not stupid. The border issue is hurting Biden with the voters. The Republicans had a choice between a temporary compromise now or a better chance to win enough power to get everything they want in 2025. They chose to go for the win.
You call his decision self-serving, but from a game theory perspective that's the whole point. Trump is inseparable from Trumpism now. If he doesn't win and get rid of his enemies then he'll spend the rest of his life on trial or in jail. For voters who call their representatives Republican-In-Name-Only, it makes perfect sense to support a candidate who can't back down and retire to a comfortable life of wealth and influence.
Short answer: The two-party system. I think there are young people in the USA who would vote for AfD but who wouldn't vote for the Republican Party. The Republicans suck in a lot of ways and are shackled to interest groups that make them unappealing to most people under the age of 40.
I think there are also a lot of young people in the USA who would vote for a far-left party in a parliamentary system but who have strong objections to voting for the Democrats - lately we've seen a lot of pushback from this bunch over the Israel-Palestine issue.
Sunshine
8mo ago
I'm talking about individual selection, not group selection. The exact result will vary depending on what kinds of battles you end up fighting throughout your life, but in general being courageous increases the individual's reproductive chances, not just the group's. If you flee the battle then you can't partake in the spoils of war. If you flee the battle, you may survive but the victors will steal your wives and daughters, and the next generation will be more like them than you. Thus, courage spreads even if cowards are more likely to survive.
Also, it must be said, the vast majority of violence throughout human history has been small-scale. For the majority of battles that most people have participated in, one man's individual courage does make a difference on the outcome. Skirmishes between groups of 20 men were far, far more common than battles between groups of 20,000.
Here, let me break it down for you. Timestamps are from this video if you want to check it yourself: https://youtube.com/watch?v=U2rMB2fYjuY&rco=1&ab_channel=PoliceActivity
10:37: She clearly takes both hands off the pot and raises them above her head.
10:38: She crouches behind the counter. The pot is visible on the stove. She is no longer holding the pot.
The bodycam is briefly blocked by the officer's arm.
10:40: She is now standing up again and she seems to have picked the pot back up and is now hoisting it over her head. To repeat, she put the pot down and then picked it back up again. I cannot imagine any reason she would have for hoisting a pot of boiling water over her head except to throw it.
also 10:40: The pot leaves her hands. Roughly simultaneously, the officer shoots her. It's hard to tell the exact timeline of events, except...
10:41: The pot lands on the chair in front of her. For this to happen, it must have had considerable forward momentum. It looks to me like she had at least begun to throw the pot when the bullet connected. If not then it should have landed on top of her, not on the chair in front of her.
It's possible (again, hard to break down this 1-second period from Youtube footage) that the cop interrupted her throw by shooting her, which means it quite possibly could have had more momentum if he hadn't shot her. If so, it's possible that if he hadn't shot her it would have hit him and inflicted life-ruining burns. It's also possible he didn't shoot until after she completed her throw, in which case it wouldn't have hit him regardless. Either way, it's clear that she had attempted to inflict life-ruining injuries on him at the time she was shot.
More options
Context Copy link