Walterodim
Only equals speak the truth, that’s my thought on’t
No bio...
User ID: 551
I would still be in the bad shoot camp. Throwing boiling water at someone is a terrible thing to do and I wouldn't begrudge them being pretty rough with her in response, but it's a one-shot deal. She's not going to be reloading the pot to continue her assault on the officers. I can imagine extenuating circumstances, but they'd have to be pretty weird. I'm not likely to get on board with shooting someone dead in their own home on the basis of an attack that can mostly be stopped by taking two steps backwards.
-The cop advances, ordering her to drop the pot.
Seems like an odd choice if your interlocutor has a weapon with a maximum effective range of approximately six feet while you have a firearm.
The initial reaction to George Floyd was universal condemnation. I watched Sean Fuckin' Hannity talk about how terrible it was and how his MMA training (lol) would never have allowed him to do that kind of blood choke for that amount of time the night it happened. This did not succeed in preventing riots. The riots preceded the right coming up with reasons that it's actually fine for cops to kneel on necks for nine minutes.
If I were a religious man, I might suggest that responding to such an utterance with, "I'll shoot you in the face" and then doing so moments later suggests that she was aware that the man she was dealing with was possessed by demons. I am not a religious man though, so I think these are just two violent people meeting the ends of their free lives.
I am once again reminded that I do not need to pick a good guy in any given engagement. I can think of quite a few off-ramps and alternatives that the police could have selected at any point, such as turning off the stove themselves rather than commanding the resident to do so. I can think of approaches after that mistake that likely would have worked. I can suggest that screaming that you'll shoot someone in the face is probably not a great approach regardless of the situation you're encountering. None of that actually moves me to be all that sympathetic to the victim, if I'm being honest. I look around that house, look at the interaction, and just feel some gross combination of pity and contempt for the deceased. I wish the police would do better and I generally don't like them very much, but that's pretty easy for me to say when I don't have to deal with this bullshit a dozen times a day.
Without commentary on the likelihood of such a thing, some foreign actors may prefer the chaos of angry MAGAs to a suspicious but quiet death.
If anyone knows where to find the analysis, I’d like to see it, because everything online traces back to this one unsourced CNN quote.
I've been hunting around and struggling to find anything else. I'm starting to wonder if CNN reached out to National Center for Media Forensics and got that analysis from them directly rather than this being published elsewhere and reported by CNN. Weird way to write it up if so.
a situation in which a leader is removed from power by the people who have worked with him or her
I was confused at what the point of these theories even was. What, if he'd been shot at and the bullet missed by a foot and only managed to wound him with shrapnel, that would suggest that the security was basically fine or the attempt wasn't a big deal? As a point of curiosity, I get it, but I don't understand how the motivated reasoning for the teleprompter theory got to whirring.
We cleared Houthis Blowing Up Fish after one of their attacks (more fun when said aloud with the same cadence as Hootie and the Blowfish). Biden Debate Prep Team also made its way through, which is probably a little spicier than it sounds in a city where most people were distraught by the outcome. So, more serious than Houthi piracy and Biden appearing senile, roughly on par with 10/7-adjacent joking.
A running bit among my friends and I when we go to trivia is joke team names based on dark humor of whatever the week's event was. We tossed a few around for fun, but decided they were all too classless to actually use. That's not terribly uncommon for us, we've previously discussed joke names like, "Merry ChristHamas" with the whole bit being maximally inappropriate naming, but we only put them down if they don't seem like they would cause sincere offense from a reasonable person. This wasn't actually a conversation about the event, but it perhaps provides a little bit of a view on whether it's a topic that's just so completely off limits that no one would make a crack about it. This is a group that's pretty normie left, but knows that I'm... well, not that.
Evidence I had but didn't really put together:
The bible talking about killing off entire families as punishments. Long lasting family feuds. Feudal level countries killing off entire families as punishments. Ongoing demands for reparations.
These don't strictly require any actual moral culpability. Pragmatists and cynics could elect to enact these measures out of a sense of vengeance, pour les encourager les autres, or simply using responsibility as a pretext.
I have a deep loathing for the Indian ethos of bending the truth or just straight out lying about things.
The power of just nodding in agreement, affirming that you understand, and then refusing to actually do it wins again and again.
Oh, I like her chance to be better than Biden, but I don't see much for true upside. The most likely scenario seems like returning to the pre-debate status quo, which was quite bad for Generic Democrat because the majority of Americans think the results from the last four years aren't very good.
Harris’s current numbers are bad, but I think she has upside once she’s untethered from Biden.
What makes you think so? It's her administration too. It's not just Biden having personally done something terrible, people are actually unhappy with the outcomes of the administration policies.
He doesn't mention picking a successor...
To be clear, he didn't mention anything. I know we're all in habit of treating statements on Twitter as though they come from the principal agent that the account is listed as, but there's basically zero chance that Joe Biden wrote the letter involved and posted it to Twitter. The situation is much weirder when accurately described as, "an unspecified Biden staffer tweeted a letter saying that Biden is leaving the race".
I am increasingly sympathetic to the idea that systems too complicated for stupid people are deeply unfair, even if I personally have no trouble understanding and even benefitting from these systems. When we look at something like credit cards, smart people can gain an edge in convenience and even a net profit from gaming the points systems. People in the middle with sufficient executive function will get the convenience benefit without too much trouble. People that either don't really understand what credit is, don't understand how interest works, or lack impulse control will purchase things they can't afford, accumulate more debt with compounding interest, and ruin their lives. In my previous, more callous thinking, I basically thought, "well, tough shit for them, it's not that hard to understand and they should just do better". Observing people's behavior, that's just not true. No matter what they do, they're not capable of understanding how compounding interests works, even if they grasp it during a conversation, that's going to be right out within a couple days.
This also extends to student loans. While I still have antipathy for people that absolutely can grasp what they're signing, it's just obvious that many people really don't understand what they're signing up for and don't understand the basics of financing. We can see people posting stories about how shocked they are that they've already paid the amount they owe, but the principal is still the same. People think "cancellation" is something that can be done without any impact on the other side of the ledger; they have no idea that there even is a ledger, they literally believe that the only reason their debt isn't cancelled is because some people are just mean and hate them.
Nate Silver continues to be a consistently good actor in the public sphere and deserves a ton of credit for being willing to buck audience capture in favor of saying what he truly thinks. When he's gotten things wrong (underestimating Trump in his original primary due to priors, for example), he's owned that and spoken publicly about why he thinks he made that mistake. When something is probabilistic and doesn't fall on the favored side, he continues to argue in favor of probabilistic thinking and tries to get people to understand calibration. He's smart, honest, and works hard to try to make sense of available data. I don't really have much else to add to it, just want once again tip the chapeau to Silver for fighting the good fight.
Dominating clay is a stupid gimmick.
I started to write something up and then realized that this is a classic example of something that's bad on purpose to make you click. I admit it, they got me, I clicked. The list is very bad indeed because there is no coherent criteria to rank any of this. I can quibble about my favorites (cyclists are obviously better athletes than guys that rely heavily on the amazing skill of being very tall, swimming is stupid and boring, golf and driving are just not even sports), but none of that is objective in any meaningful way and the whole point is to get people to give those takes and send it to their buds.
You can see the standards here and they are a joke.
If you don't think her physical appearance demonstrates a lack of serious physical standards, I really don't think I can convince you of this though. Contra the saying, you can pretty well judge a book by its cover when it comes to fitness.
Obesity isn't just "less than perfect beauty", it's a reflection of actual physical vitality and fitness. Having fat women do this job is just an obviously stupid idea whether she personally screwed anything up this time or not. That we're at the point where people justify enlisting fat women in roles that should be done by fit men is an incredible indictment of the discourse. Even if the complaint was strictly aesthetic and somehow her appearance wasn't reflected in physical performance, I would still object to an elite security force being staffed by people that can't be bothered to look the part. This sort of degradation reflects a culture of tolerating sloppiness and not demanding high levels of performance.
Do you consider the presence of a Melissa McCarthy lookalike in Trump's personal detail to be evidence? I can't imagine an institution with healthy masculinity allowing this slob to occupy any highly visible position.
Chapeau to you for the double check. Seriously, I appreciate the effort and lack of combativeness. The only reason I remembered it the way I do is because I was one of people that was initially on the total condemnation route and started to rationalize it after my town got jacked up by riots. Pretty hard to consider myself cleanly rational on the matter when I think about the reaction and then the rereaction.
More options
Context Copy link