Non-IT News Thread
-
@momurda said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller If you look at terror crimes in the US, the vast majority are carried out by white supremacist groups, not Islamic terrorists despite what Gmen and politicians would have you think. So the number of terrorists in the US probably much higher than other places if you include white nationalist groups. Something like 75% of terrorist acts/murders in the US are done by white nationalist shitbags.
If you look at it another way, which is interesting I think, white supremacist or Westboro type groups actually are those Islamic fundamentalist groups here in the US. If you look at behaviour and ideology, rather than name, they are essentially identical. They believe the same things, feel the same way, behave the same way. They really are the same groups. And just as how in the US those groups don't represent white or Christian values; those groups in the Middle East don't represent Semitic or Islamic values. In both cases, it is "fundamentalist" values, which is it's own political-religious group that is the antithesis of the religious it purports to be related to.
-
So in some ways, we have two radically different groups. But in other ways, they are exactly the same group. If you think of them in absolute terms, they don't share names, looks, or dress codes. But if you look at them in relative terms, they both act as a "filter" on their local traditions and cultures in exact same ways. So perspective can make them polar opposites; or one the branch of the other.
-
@mlnews said in Non-IT News Thread:
Just f'ing wow! What is this tendency to use deadly force at the least perceived provocation? That's a frightening thought that this could be anyone. Clearly I don't have all of the information to form a solid opinion but damn that seems extreme.
-
@nashbrydges said in Non-IT News Thread:
@mlnews said in Non-IT News Thread:
Just f'ing wow! What is this tendency to use deadly force at the least perceived provocation? That's a frightening thought that this could be anyone. Clearly I don't have all of the information to form a solid opinion but damn that seems extreme.
And there is essentially no penalty for it. There is no ramifications if a cop uses deadly force. They just have no reason to not just willy nilly shoot anyone they want.
-
Corey Feldman has been stabbed in Los Angeles following a series of death threats. He seems to be doing okay, but was hospitalized.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@nashbrydges said in Non-IT News Thread:
@mlnews said in Non-IT News Thread:
Just f'ing wow! What is this tendency to use deadly force at the least perceived provocation? That's a frightening thought that this could be anyone. Clearly I don't have all of the information to form a solid opinion but damn that seems extreme.
And there is essentially no penalty for it. There is no ramifications if a cop uses deadly force. They just have no reason to not just willy nilly shoot anyone they want.
Remember, kids: Cops can get away with anything they want, up to and including premeditated murder. Sure, they might have to relocate to a new area, with a fat severance package in hand, and take some cushy security job for the same pay as "punishment", but they still got away with murder.
-
@rojoloco said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@nashbrydges said in Non-IT News Thread:
@mlnews said in Non-IT News Thread:
Just f'ing wow! What is this tendency to use deadly force at the least perceived provocation? That's a frightening thought that this could be anyone. Clearly I don't have all of the information to form a solid opinion but damn that seems extreme.
And there is essentially no penalty for it. There is no ramifications if a cop uses deadly force. They just have no reason to not just willy nilly shoot anyone they want.
Remember, kids: Cops can get away with anything they want, up to and including premeditated murder. Sure, they might have to relocate to a new area, with a fat severance package in hand, and take some cushy security job for the same pay as "punishment", but they still got away with murder.
What's scary is that schools and stuff teach kids to go to cops for help. Cops are the most dangerous person that a kid could approach. Most criminals are literally safer than the cops!
-
Someone should do a study, in the case of an anonymous situation (e.g. you aren't a designated target ahead of time) is it safer to approach a cop or a criminal.
-
Ecuador cuts Internet access for Julian Assange They claim it was for the following tweet:
-
Their are black hats and white hats, their are good guys and bad guys, there are venomous snakes and harmless snakes, their are good public servants and bad public servants. Don't be so bitter and angry, its not good for you. It sounds like racism of a profession. I have family in law enforcement. The broad brush doesn't help anyone.
-
@popester said in Non-IT News Thread:
It sounds like racism of a profession
The deputy was black as well as the now deceased civilian.
-
@nerdydad said in Non-IT News Thread:
@popester said in Non-IT News Thread:
It sounds like racism of a profession
The deputy was black as well as the now deceased civilian.
My point was, classifying all law enforcement as evil reminds me of the talk I used to hear when i was a little kid. "All, (insert ethnic group) are such and such." Its sad.
-
@popester said in Non-IT News Thread:
Their are black hats and white hats, their are good guys and bad guys, there are venomous snakes and harmless snakes, their are good public servants and bad public servants. Don't be so bitter and angry, its not good for you. It sounds like racism of a profession. I have family in law enforcement. The broad brush doesn't help anyone.
Broad brushes are bad in some contexts. But there are time that they are important. For example, are all members of the mafia or a drug cartel bad? When does "doing something bad" as a representative of a group turn into a problem through "voluntary membership or association with a group."
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@popester said in Non-IT News Thread:
Their are black hats and white hats, their are good guys and bad guys, there are venomous snakes and harmless snakes, their are good public servants and bad public servants. Don't be so bitter and angry, its not good for you. It sounds like racism of a profession. I have family in law enforcement. The broad brush doesn't help anyone.
Broad brushes are bad in some contexts. But there are time that they are important. For example, are all members of the mafia or a drug cartel bad? When does "doing something bad" as a representative of a group turn into a problem through "voluntary membership or association with a group."
1 bad apple spoils the whole bunch?
-
@popester said in Non-IT News Thread:
@nerdydad said in Non-IT News Thread:
@popester said in Non-IT News Thread:
It sounds like racism of a profession
The deputy was black as well as the now deceased civilian.
My point was, classifying all law enforcement as evil reminds me of the talk I used to hear when i was a little kid. "All, (insert ethnic group) are such and such." Its sad.
No, but all law enforcement voluntarily choose to earn a living through a corrupt system in which their membership has become involved in atrocities with which they are associated.
If being a copy voluntarily doesn't put some guilt on someone, does being the member of a terrorist group not put guilt until they themselves commit acts of atrocity?
Certainly the two are different. But where and why? What makes them different? It's a difficult definition to find.
It's not about bad cops, that alone is one bad thing. It's also about a legal system that promotes and protects bad cops. It's about other cops allowing it to continue. It's about a system of organized terror and murder. Sure, it's the rare cop that actually does it, but every cop has voluntarily chosen to be a part of that system. Maybe to participate, maybe to stop it "from the inside", maybe they don't care one way or the other. But voluntarily participation in a system carries responsibility.
-
@nerdydad said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@popester said in Non-IT News Thread:
Their are black hats and white hats, their are good guys and bad guys, there are venomous snakes and harmless snakes, their are good public servants and bad public servants. Don't be so bitter and angry, its not good for you. It sounds like racism of a profession. I have family in law enforcement. The broad brush doesn't help anyone.
Broad brushes are bad in some contexts. But there are time that they are important. For example, are all members of the mafia or a drug cartel bad? When does "doing something bad" as a representative of a group turn into a problem through "voluntary membership or association with a group."
1 bad apple spoils the whole bunch?
If all the apples voluntarily associate with the rotten ones
-
But we can flip it, there are good cops. Do some good cops create a positive "group" in the opposite way? How many bad cops does it take before the badness becomes a "taint"? How many good cops to overcome a "taint"? Does any number of good overcome a number of bad (that aren't properly stopped and punished?)
The issue here, I think, the real key that people have problems with, isn't good cops and bad cops, those are just individuals. It's the institutional system that gives cops weapons, freedom to murder without serious fear of reprisal, protection, even money for committing crimes. For example, in Texas, some cops were doing some pretty awful things down on the Texas / Mexico border and when the residents tried to do something about it, the state pulled their "you can't sue cops" law out which is the same as saying "no law, no protection" for citizens in Texas. That such a law exists is beyond evil, that any person or organization would ever stoop to using it is, in my mind, the ultimate case where capital punishment should be used. It's a level far worse than treason or murder. It's a total undermining of society.
-
Or another way of looking at it.... from a personal ethics perspective. Would you fine it morally reprehensible to be a cop yourself (in the US, outside the US the systems are unrelated.)? My personal ethics would not allow me to accept pay as a cop, I think it is morally wrong within the context of how cops operate today. But that means, every cop was willing to cross that ethical line that I'm not willing to cross, and most people I know would not. So that's a very different way to think about it.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
Or another way of looking at it.... from a personal ethics perspective. Would you fine it morally reprehensible to be a cop yourself (in the US, outside the US the systems are unrelated.)? My personal ethics would not allow me to accept pay as a cop, I think it is morally wrong within the context of how cops operate today. But that means, every cop was willing to cross that ethical line that I'm not willing to cross, and most people I know would not. So that's a very different way to think about it.
How would a cop and their families live on no pay?
-
Similarly, this is the same discussion that we had with the
moderators and why they were so upset with me about a year ago. I gave up my moderator powers on strict ethics grounds. To be a moderator you were required to agree to run scams on community members for the benefit of I refused and demanded all associated between me and the community ownership be severed completely, nothing could associate me with the company or the moderators. But everyone that accepted or remained a moderator accepted that terrible ethical position as something they were willing to do for whatever benefits being a moderator brought to them personally.I've had some moderators say that they just didn't care about the unethical things that they had to agree to, they didn't have the issues with professional and personal integrity that I did. I had one say that she accepted the ethical dilemma because she felt she was best "changing the group from the inside", and while I have no idea how that is supposed to work, it was an interesting reason for being willing to associate with illegal and utterly unethical agreements.
But so taking cops out of the equation, when being a voluntary member of a group that has to agree to questionable or outright unethical things to be a member, when does the ethical problems flow to those agreeing to participate?
