Jump to content

Welcome to Nightly.Net
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

When will the media learn?


257 replies to this topic

#201
Pong Messiah

Pong Messiah

    don't want to be buried in a pet cemetery

  • Member
  • 19,360 posts

But how do you know when somebody is posing and when somebody just feels something really, really deeply?

 

:eek:



#202
The Kurgan

The Kurgan

    There can be only one

  • Member
  • 2,137 posts
Alot of it's tone, mate. I find it easy to tell when some social issue gives a blogger or pundit valid pretext to step into a preacher mold, a condescending scolding parent way of coming across or a smug, know it all demeanor. People are surprisingly NOT good at concealing it when they go on a moral or intellectual ego trip. People are also not good at consciously recognizing when this happens and calling it out for what it is. Or I think they can sense it instinctively, but can't quite put it into the words needed to pin it down consciously and intellectually. As a result, the ego tripping and the surface message too often get conflated and are either endorsed or opposed as such. A lot of problems in political discourse, especially in social media, are attributable to this.

#203
Ms. Spam

Ms. Spam

    MS.

  • Member
  • 18,179 posts

Heh. Kind of on topic but off topic: Some nut job in Austin went nuts and fired off about 40 rounds in the Mexican Consulate, a police station and some other public buildings to protest immigration. White bread men are being emasculated by the fact that they can't convince their women to let them procreate so more brown people are being made than white people and they're being out numbered. I may or may not be drunk but I think people are funny.

 

Racism or classism or just plain fear.



#204
Cerina

Cerina

    Now and forever...

  • Admin
  • 30,075 posts

The cop was holding 2 horses in one hand, drew his weapon with the other, shot once, and killed that dude. While maintaining control of 2 police horses. One handed. One shot. 

 

That's some serious Clint Eastwood **** right there. 

 

Texas ftw. 


  • Burt +1 this

#205
Pong Messiah

Pong Messiah

    don't want to be buried in a pet cemetery

  • Member
  • 19,360 posts

Oh no! Must have been stressful for the poor horses! I hope he wasn't holding them in a way that was too restrictive or uncomfortable. Will have to read more on this story.

 

:(



#206
Burt

Burt

    stomp stomp clap

  • Member
  • 1,246 posts

The Texas shooter looked kind of out there. How crazy he must have been to think he was going to accomplish something.



#207
Ms. Spam

Ms. Spam

    MS.

  • Member
  • 18,179 posts

I love the shooters last name: McQuilliams. A friend I went to high school swears he's worked with the guy.



#208
Carrie Mathison

Carrie Mathison

    Member

  • Member
  • 1,108 posts

Copper's point is, unless I'm wrong, "Imagine how you'd feel if you were them". My point is "why imagine anything else?". I think these two points are sort of closely related but you obviously don't.


I can't speak for Copper. What I think Carrie is getting at here, correct me if I'm wrong, can be summed up as follows: It isn't necessarily bad to be an "ally" or stand in "solidarity" with this oppressed group or that provided that the true and honest aim of such actions is to genuinely improve the lot of such people. I don't think that's where the problem lies. The problem, and I've seen TONS of this with my leftist friends on facebook, is when the plight, real or imagined, of a member of a group that falls within the charmed circle of "oppressed" groups in accordance to the liberal canon, is highlighted for the true purposes of exalting oneself or shaming another for not being quite so "enlightened" as oneself - especially when this is done with an air of classist arrogance. The anti racist stance taken in a case like this is really a pretense. The real purpose, never openly expressed but tacit and implied - of crying "racist" against your less than enlightened fellow is to make oneself look smarter or more virtuous than another member of your own demographic. This conduct is especially duplicitous and hypocritical when it targets less educated and poorer members of your own demographic and is motivated by a smug, classist derisiveness and shame towards them.

I can't speak for Copper or anyone, and cannot say if anyone here is guilty of this. I do see a lot of this on social media. My own brother, who's a history prof, is horrible for it. He advocates NOTHING that would genuinely advance the well being of blacks and natives, he merely romanticizes them because that's what good progressives do. And of course he scowls at white racism and Christian fundamentalism NOT because prejudice and barbaric superstitions are in and of themselves bad, but because they implicitly shame him when done by fellow white males and remind him of his own privilege, being a college prof and all. A remarkable accomplishment, for sure. But ... do you see the problem here? Underlying this whole system of thought is an implicit belief in the white male supremacy he's otherwise so critical of. "WE expect that sort of thing from those downtrodden blacks, arabs and emotionally hysterical women - they can't help it, after all, being victims of colonialism, patriarchy and all that. But an educated western white male should be better than that."  The racism and elitism implicit in such a world view is projected onto their conservative white male counterparts, who are probably not innocent of it themselves, but still ...
 
And my bro is not alone in this regard.  A number of leftist friends of mine, otherwise good people, are just steeped in this. Western progressivism as a whole is. That's why I couldn't take it anymore and got out of it.  It's the leftist equivalent to the conservative Christian's disregard for his own moral code on the grounds that he's been "saved" since "accepting Jesus as his Lord and Savior" and therefore any wrong he does is superfluous.  And since "I'm a sinner anyway, I might as well go for the gusto here ..." and another televangelist or conservative politician implodes in a prostitution or infidelity scandal.  The problem, at its core, is when virtue is adopted as a label to mark oneself in a moral or intellectual elite of some kind, while disregarding the actual spirit of the virtue in question and the sometimes challenging actions it would require one adopting it to take.


Excellent, A+ post. Kurgan proving again why he's one of the best posters here.

Very well done.
  • The Kurgan +1 this

#209
Tex

Tex

    Member

  • Member
  • 0 posts
Kurgan always speaks the truth. Insightful and logical without the venom so many spice their posts with.
  • The Kurgan and Odine +1 this

#210
Carrie Mathison

Carrie Mathison

    Member

  • Member
  • 1,108 posts

I really think you might be wrong about this. First of all : cops are not more likely to face homicidal maniacs than other professions and we can see this (I think) from the fact that they don't die from homicide as much as most people assume they do (you can check that out in the Bureau of Labour & Statistics report on occupational homicides by selected characteristics 1997 - 2010 and compare the numbers on cops to other workers and then think about how many cops there are versus how many of other professions are - I may be wrong about this because I heard this and am using Google to reconstruct the reasoning here but it is also 5 in the morning).


That statistic (assuming it exists- you did not post a link) does not prove your argument. This logic is not sound. The fact that cops are not statistically more likely to die from homicide does not mean they are also statistically less likely to face the danger of homicide.

In fact, one could possibly argue (if not plausibly) that the reason why the homicide rate for cops is similar to other professions is because they are armed and quick to the trigger, which diffuses situations from escalating to a homicide, and rather ends in an arrest (or perhaps, the killing of the criminal).

For your argument to be sound, you'd have to show the actual homicidal danger cops face isn't statistically greater relative to other professions. This could be proven perhaps by showing the number of generally violent situations a cop faces isn't relatively greater- maybe by comparing the number of assaults/batteries, attempted murders, number of times encountering a disorderly person, etc., a cop faces to another profession and controlling for other variables.

But simply showing the number of completed homicides against cops doesn't prove anything.
 

Carrie - like I said at the beginning of this whole thing sometime in dinosaur times I have already changed my mind on this sort of thing once. I am open to a fundamentally different way at looking at the world and to changing my perspective on this and so many other things but in this time and in this place I doubt you have anything truly new to say on the subject that'll automatically reverse my craaaazy position


Agree that I have nothing to say that will make you reverse your position which is why I haven't argued much with you except as to wonder why you always love to get into these threads to counter my.. "nonsense."

But disagree that you are open to a fundamentally different way at looking at the world. I can see this by your responses to pong, who by the way, is the most ridiculously anti-cop person I've ever met, and who is making a reasonable point, your response of which is to reiterate your same straw man, avoid addressing his actual point, and then accuse him of being the one who is making you reiterate your point.

That tells me that, no, you are not fundamentally open to sh-t. You're as closed minded as I am, the difference is I don't pretend to be anything else.
  • Pong Messiah +1 this

#211
The Kurgan

The Kurgan

    There can be only one

  • Member
  • 2,137 posts

Kurgan always speaks the truth. Insightful and logical without the venom so many spice their posts with.


Excellent, A+ post. Kurgan proving again why he's one of the best posters here.

Very well done.


Aww ... yer makin' me blush <grin>

#212
Pong Messiah

Pong Messiah

    don't want to be buried in a pet cemetery

  • Member
  • 19,360 posts

Kurgan always speaks the truth. Insightful and logical without the venom so many spice their posts with.

SPICY VENOM!!! I want to try that sushi roll.

 

IMO, Kurgan is so well-versed on issues of identity politics and feminism, he tends to "see a communist under every rock," and overstate their prevalence -- though I do think he is spot on in the points he make, and is one of the best and most interesting posters in the history of this forum ever.



#213
Tex

Tex

    Member

  • Member
  • 0 posts

Kurgan always speaks the truth. Insightful and logical without the venom so many spice their posts with.

SPICY VENOM!!! I want to try that sushi roll.

Sadly, Pong, that was a C- post. With that you can only get dicey venom.

I'm sure it'll still work on a sushi roll, though.

#214
Pong Messiah

Pong Messiah

    don't want to be buried in a pet cemetery

  • Member
  • 19,360 posts

What's dicey venom do?



#215
Carrie Mathison

Carrie Mathison

    Member

  • Member
  • 1,108 posts

Kurgan always speaks the truth. Insightful and logical without the venom so many spice their posts with.

SPICY VENOM!!! I want to try that sushi roll.
 
IMO, Kurgan is so well-versed on issues of identity politics and feminism, he tends to "see a communist under every rock," and overstate their prevalence -- though I do think he is spot on in the points he make, and is one of the best and most interesting posters in the history of this forum ever.


Astute. LK's one flaw is that he has these occasional bouts of paranoia and can easily get lost down a rabbit hole of (usually) feminist identity politics.

Still though, hero poster. Him and I have opposite views on pretty much everything but identity politics, but what I like about him is his logical consistency, genuine presentation, and the fact you can tell he came to his beliefs by a lot of actual introspective thought and not by osmosis from his acquaintances (or even worse, by just spouting off sh-t from Gawker).
  • Pong Messiah +1 this

#216
Tex

Tex

    Member

  • Member
  • 0 posts

What's dicey venom do?


It'll clean you out, but leave you hollow inside.

#217
monkeygirl

monkeygirl

    Advad Disagerer

  • Administrator
  • 22,329 posts
I LIKE spicy venom. Amanda'd be SO BORING without it.

#218
The Kurgan

The Kurgan

    There can be only one

  • Member
  • 2,137 posts

IMO, Kurgan is so well-versed on issues of identity politics and feminism, he tends to "see a communist under every rock," and overstate their prevalence -- though I do think he is spot on in the points he make, and is one of the best and most interesting posters in the history of this forum ever.

Astute. LK's one flaw is that he has these occasional bouts of paranoia and can easily get lost down a rabbit hole of (usually) feminist identity politics.


It's a matter of what I'm most exposed to. Most of the flakes I encounter personally are identity politics fanatics (most of whom are white males, interestingly) who project all kinds of darkness and horror onto the Christian right. Not necessarily unwarranted, but it strikes me as being a case of "gazing into the abyss and the abyss also gazing into you." And I'll admit it - I'm not completely innocent of it myself. It's too easy to be remade in the image of your enemies. As regards the feminists, I really got tuned in by my exposure to the men's rights types. Is that what I wanted myself to become? As such, I strive to own my personal insecurities and relate my criticism of the SJWs - or anyone come to that - to their own glaring excesses. The one who gives in to ther own fears always loses.

I went through this back in the 90s with conservatism. I HATED conservatives so much I became a full blown commie. What good does that do?
  • Pong Messiah +1 this

#219
R.CAllen

R.CAllen

    walking

  • Member
  • 4,143 posts

I have directly asked you only two simple and, in my opinion, perfectly reasonable questions in this thread:
 
1) What would you consider "justice?"
2) How did you reach what you currently think you know?
 
You answered the first question with several vague words and "meteor justice," and did not bother responding to the second one at all.


Sorry for the second one. You're absolutely right. I missed it! And, you're right, those are the only two times you've asked me for anything.

Carrie - Pong and you seem to think of homicidal maniac as "someone who presents a justifiable {to the mind of the potential victim of homicide} risk of being a homicidal maniac" while I think of the words 'homicidal maniac' as "someone who is truly about to kill you". I think cops, because of their jobs, face a huge number of the former definition and very few of the latter and am therefore skeptical any time a cop says "he was about to kill me so I had to kill him".

Also, I think I've explained many times why I get into these threads and it's certainly not to 'counter' anything you say. I don't see Pong's point as reasonable as my own, am not sorry for not addressing it to his or your satisfaction, think either you or Pong are maybe unclear on what a straw man argument is since you seem to think I've employed one in an argument you seem to think I'm actually having with either of you, and remain open as before to any and all of your beautiful and elaborate perspectives.

Edited by R.CAllen, 01 December 2014 - 01:07 PM.


#220
Carrie Mathison

Carrie Mathison

    Member

  • Member
  • 1,108 posts

Carrie - Pong and you seem to think of homicidal maniac as "someone who presents a justifiable {to the mind of the potential victim of homicide} risk of being a homicidal maniac" while I think of the words 'homicidal maniac' as "someone who is truly about to kill you". I think cops, because of their jobs, face a huge number of the former definition and very few of the latter and am therefore skeptical any time a cop says "he was about to kill me so I had to kill him".


That's a fair point, but it's also fair to point out this is the first time you've made this argument.

This is an interesting argument and really gets to the philosophical question of when someone is justified in making a self-defense claim- i.e. when violence is legally permissible. Right now the law looks more towards what the person thinks in their mind (i.e. the former in your post), than perhaps objective reality (i.e. the latter), because the concept of criminal guilt, i.e. mens rea, is based entirely on the malicious intent of the wrongdoer. In other words, the law is saying if someone has the actual, genuine belief that his life is in danger, he doesn't have the requisite mens rea to be guilty of murder, i.e. his intent is survival and not malice. I think the law is correct in being set up this way, and it works in other situations. For example, intent is why we are able to charge attempted murder, because a criminal may have not actually done it (or perhaps even been capable of doing it), but he still has the malicious intent of killing. If we simply looked towards what was objectively possible (as to intent), then we wouldn't be philosophically consistent in charging someone of attempted murder who pulled the trigger and had every intent of killing except that his firearm was incorrectly loaded and was physically incapable of firing.

Additionally, even in your example, we'd still need a different stat for the reasons I gave. To be able to show cops actually face less homicidal danger, you'd have to show something directly related to how much danger is encountered. Simply posting a stat that they are not murdered at higher rates than the general public does not prove they don't face the danger. A stat that perhaps showed how many dangerous situations a cop faces (i.e. violent arrests, assaults, batteries, disorderly people, etc) would do more to help your argument I think.

#221
R.CAllen

R.CAllen

    walking

  • Member
  • 4,143 posts
I appreciate your informed explanation. You seem to still think I'm making an argument. I guess, in the future, when Pong says he and I disagree on everything I won't continue past the point of acceding to his correct assessment.

#222
Pong Messiah

Pong Messiah

    don't want to be buried in a pet cemetery

  • Member
  • 19,360 posts

Also, I think I've explained many times why I get into these threads and it's certainly not to 'counter' anything you say. I don't see Pong's point as reasonable, am not sorry for not addressing it to his or your satisfaction, think either you or Pong are maybe unclear on what a straw man argument is since you seem to think I've employed one in an argument you seem to think I'm actually having with either of you, and remain open as before to any and all of your beautiful and elaborate perspectives.

Wait... what? 
 
True, most of your posts in here are just petulant spitballing from the back of the classroom. But just 'cause you are too incapable, too lazy, too scared, too obstinate -- too whatever -- to clearly and concisely state your position and explain/defend it like a normal human being does not mean you are not having/employing an argument. It just means you are not very competent at it.
 
It is obvious from the type of threads you appear in and the people/arguments you heckle that you are a highly opinionated individual. While your opinions themselves invariably lay garbled behind the safety of overlong, overcute "Look ma! I'm gonna be a writer someday!" sentences, your utterances serve to place you in clear opposition to those who do not feel the same about the world or current events as you. This opposition is the stuff from which arguments are made. Here, you were bothered enough to post super early in the morning and even brought in facts* to counter something I said -- which is something you never do... yet you claim there is no argument being had? If not, what exactly was that? I'm dying to know!
 
-------
 
 

* yes, facts: though they did not help your case and you did not bother citing them, they were factual facts. I looked them up myself and you were correct.


  • Cerina, The Kurgan and Carrie Mathison +1 this

#223
R.CAllen

R.CAllen

    walking

  • Member
  • 4,143 posts

Carrie once explained to me what an argument is. Ask her! Her definition doesn't fit with what I was doing! What I'm doing is not an argument - it's addressing you merely because you're addressing me. I'm not trying to convince you of anything, or refute anything, or I just realized you said you were dying to know what I think what I'm writing is and I feel perfectly okay with you doing that. By all means, please, die.
 
While you do, though, I can write that I'm a little sorry you don't think my thoughts on this matter have been explained to you clearly or concisely since both are what I have, for once in a Lyceum discussion, been aiming for. And I was about to start typing a sentence that begin with the words "For the third time : I" but have since decided not to. That might be cowardice, or obstinance, or laziness, - and, again, giving up right here out of what I hope is good sense.


Edited by R.CAllen, 01 December 2014 - 03:32 PM.


#224
monkeygirl

monkeygirl

    Advad Disagerer

  • Administrator
  • 22,329 posts

This is an interesting argument and really gets to the philosophical question of when someone is justified in making a self-defense claim- i.e. when violence is legally permissible. Right now the law looks more towards what the person thinks in their mind (i.e. the former in your post), than perhaps objective reality


But how can we determine what EITHER person was thinking when one is dead and the other wants to stay out of prison?

#225
monkeygirl

monkeygirl

    Advad Disagerer

  • Administrator
  • 22,329 posts

I thought we had a Michael Brown thread, with that title. Can't find, so posting this here.

 

KU Journalism Major Shreds “Case” Against Mike Brown

 

http://kansasexposed...nst-mike-brown/

 

 



Reply to this topic