Jump to content

Serak The Preparer

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    1433
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Serak The Preparer

  1. 1 minute ago, BabaYaga said:

    To create a physical record of their presence on the car for identification purposes in the event they are killed.  Think about that for a second.  Dozens of stops a day, hundreds a week, thousands a month.  Each with the level of apprehension that I need a physical identification marker in the event of any technological malfunctions that I was here in case I die.  

    The point is most officers are under a tremendous amount of stress, and traffic stops are among the worst in terms of apprehension.  Felons with warrants.  Contraband.  Fugitives.  Hostages.  All this factors in.  You want to replace these officers with unarmed social workers?  For many soccer-moms scared to get a ticket, sure.  For gang members, felons, and the rest, this is a recipe for an unmitigated disaster.  It's not a secret traffic stops and domestic violence calls are THE MOST dangerous calls LE's have to make....and you want to send in social workers into a scenario you know nothing about?  Utter insanity....

    Wait - are you under the impression that even the most ardent "defund the police" people are arguing that social workers should be performing traffic stops?

    • Haha 1
  2. On 9/11/2020 at 6:42 PM, slorch said:

    IDK if it's true or not.  neither do you.  should be easy as fuck to prove.  Link to the Mccain thing is in this thread.  I said it was fucked up that he said it.  Your last question is exactly why I have an issue with it.  I don't care how the left characterizes the dude.  It's always a bloodbath on that front.

     

    Link to anyone vouching for the validity of this accusation?

    Slorch, I totally get saying that nobody knows if it's true or not. But with proverbial gun to the head, do you think it's more likely that he said what was reported, or more likely that he didn't? Not asking for criminal conviction, no court-room preponderance of evidence, just curious what you think is more likely?

  3. 34 minutes ago, clapclapclap said:

    If you'd bother to dig a little, you'd find the usual loose coalitions.   Research > guessing

     

    The 2 groups partnering in April:

    http://archive.is/vcnSr

    January:

    https://transparencypress.xyz/Practice-Los-Angeles-June-update

    To learn more and join the organized fight, please refer to the demands and information from People’s Budget L.A. and the coalition of organizers behind the campaign:
     

    So why are the tweets you linked calling them BLM protesters? Wouldn't it be just as valid to say "Look at these Youth Justice Coalition protesters!", or "Man, these Sunrise Movement Los Angeles protesters suck!" You posted tweets specifically calling them BLM, then when there was pushback, rather than admit that your "source" made some inflammatory assumptions, pulled this lame association bullshit as a response. But sure, no politics on DT!

    • Hook 'Em 2
    • Like 2
  4. 4 hours ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

    Looks completely fake.  She sounds like she's reading from a script.

     

    57 minutes ago, Dr. Beeper said:

    That never dawned on me but you’re completely right. 

    So you think that a random woman (who is presumably not a racist) is willing to look like a crazy racist to the internet, jeopardizing future job prospects, social interactions, etc., and that this is more likely than her being just a random racist crazy person?

  5. 1 hour ago, Anastasis said:

    Rush is a piece of shit. 

    I don't find anything particularly warming in my soul about spiking the football on him, or anyone else for that matter, over a cancer diagnosis though. 

    I am somewhat in agreement with you on the overall appropriateness of wishing cancer on anyone. I agree with Roma (and I am sure others) that any wish I have to this effect has no effect on the outcome re: Rush, but I also believe that wishing bad thoughts causes self-damage, in that it makes it easier and easier to wish or cause harm on others.

    That being said, I think it was disingenuous to claim that this wish is because of politics. It removes any focus on the abject piece of shit Rush is. Intentionally or not, you minimized the cause of the reaction.

    • Like 1
  6. 16 hours ago, Brisketexan said:


    The American strategy for success and global dominance starts and ends with its foolproof plan:

    1 - watch Europe blow itself to shit repeatedly for a coupla centuries.

    That’s it. There’s no step 2.

    We got lucky. That’s it.

    Eh, you are only 1/3 right.

    You forgot step 1: commit genocide against native population to increase borders and expand natural resource base, along with step 2: enslave people and exploit unpaid labor to build ruling caste. When you add step 3 as referenced in your post, it's really a pretty solid plan!

    • Hook 'Em 4
  7. 1 minute ago, Biff Tannen said:

    Quoting this again because come the fuck on. Who is fucking buying this?  If this is true then your cousin was too fucking stupid to live anyway. I hate these fucking people. 

    Umm Biff, may wanna check the names in that tweet.

    • Hook 'Em 1
    • Haha 2
  8. 34 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

    My son Benito Brisketexan wishes that I had such foresight...

    Question that naturally follows, is it the first or last name that is more worrisome for his future?

    • Hook 'Em 1
    • Haha 1
  9. 45 minutes ago, Helobious said:

    Police have stated Foster never fired his weapon. First shooter was driver, 2nd shooter was a bystander firing at fleeing driver. 

    You dummy, that can't be the case. All the gun experts in this thread very clearly analyzed the audio of the cell phone video and conclusively found that the first shots were made by a long gun / rifle / AK-47.

    • Hook 'Em 6
    • Like 1
    • Haha 2
  10. 36 minutes ago, Rougarou said:

    What about calling women fat whales or otherwise commenting on their physical appearance (along with sometimes using misogynist adjectives)? I'd be curious how Bama squares that circle because she used to do it with the lady who was former spokesperson, Sarah Huckabee.

    I totally agree with that. Also it gets really old seeing the "women are bad at math" memes. It sucks and we should do better.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  11.  

    8 minutes ago, gmr548 said:

    You should tag him a couple more times to be sure.

    :) - I may not have a good handle on social etiquette of tagging, the OCD in me likes the clarity it offers but it is perhaps a bit too much.

    • Like 1
  12. 1 hour ago, SydneyCarton said:

    First, I wasn’t responding to you. You weren’t the person quoted in that post of mine you have cited. So don’t quote me and act like you’re doing anything else other than inserting yourself into MY discourse. 
     

    Second, you didn’t see me defend him or stick up for him in a fight, because he is an adult and doesnt need a white knight. What you did quote, and did see, is me tell people to shut the fuck up and quit the pile on after he showed up, ate crow, and showed more integrity and humility about being wrong or uninformed about something than currently 99.9% of American society does these days. And yet the pile on continued. That’s the echo chamber Bullshit Echo Chamber to which I’m referring and no it’s not a lazy fucking defense, it’s played out right here. And it’s part of what’s wrong with American society in general. People are punished for doing the right thing and incentivized to shut up, not learn, and not grow. Now, do you people want to spend another 4 pages beating the guy with reeds after he’s mea culpa’d or do you want to actually talk about AOC?
     

     

    @SydneyCarton You continue to be full of shit. Please, show me the post that where he "showed up, ate crow, and showed more integrity and humility about being wrong or uninformed about something than currently 99.9% of American society does these days". The closest one I can find is "I’ll wear the sexist portion of it because this is Surly and I was kidding. And if it offended anyone, I’ll be in my bunk" That's a good post, which was included in a reply to another poster and may not have been seen. I suspect if @Homesickhorn had made his last post after the initial call-outs, there would have been very little back and forth. But between the defensiveness in that post and others, there was not a lot of "integrity and humility about being wrong or uninformed" until his last post, and the criticism ("pile-on") stopped.

    Your over-the-top language is silly and makes you look like a clown. Hell, even @Homesickhorn gave the most sincere, abject apology the world has ever seen, people can still respond. If you say something stupid, then apologize, other people are not obligated to stop being pissy with you. He was not "punished for doing the right thing". Seriously, what was the right thing, and what was the punishment? How much of a pile-on was there, after his post where he acknowledged a dumb post with sincerity?

    The CR has a lot of stupid bullshit in it, and the only reason I made my first post was because I would really like it if posters like @Homesickhorn really did post in here. Hence pointing out that the right lesson is not "don't post in CR", it's "don't call women cunts, and if it is just a joke that landed badly, being used in an ironic sense, try to clarify".

    Finally, @Homesickhorn I hope you understand that I'm not trying to continually call you out here. I am tagging you a lot because obviously your posts are part of the conversation with Syndey, but very much acknowledge that you owned the post, I would drop it if it weren't Syndey being such a hyperbolic character.

     

     

    • Hook 'Em 2
    • Like 2
    • Fuck You 1
  13. 1 hour ago, Homesickhorn said:


    Man did I pick the wrong time to drop that word. Hearing her today was pretty damn moving. I’ll keep my doubts to myself from here on out. If it’s any consolation, I apologize for using that term, and I will own and wear it.
    That probably won’t do anything to those that called me a piece of trash, and a misogynist, but I do apologize.
    Lesson learned; Don’t comment in the politics thread.

     

    28 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

    Homesick is a big boy, and he can handle himself. That said, he’s shown more humility and a willingness to listen and change his opinion and receive new information in a way folks here bemoan society in general won’t do. He’s been my friend in real life for a decade, and he’s been a rock to me when I needed him and vice versa. He’s not a misogynist. He’s not a sexist. And I’m getting beers with him tomorrow and I’m excited. You guys need pull back your own dog whistles on this shit. Not that I expect you to, this post will probably be negged to hell. That’s the CR, I guess. 
     

    By the way Penelope is a real life friend to, and she’s as whip smart and kind a person you will meet. But you guys can rip apart anyone with a smidge of an opposing opinion. I know, I’m a hell of a ripper myself. But this is a perfect example of the left echo chamber going batshit. And keep in mind I’m the guy who defended AOC and posted her video today on this thread. 

    @Homesickhorn, for crying out loud, if the lesson you learned is that you shouldn't post in the CR, then you really are thick. You called AOC a dizzy cunt, then when called out, just said it was a funny joke. Most people don't consider that a funny joke. You didn't seem to find anything wrong with it and argued that it was in good taste. That's a dumb opinion. But shit, dumb opinions in CR are just as common as dumb opinions in Recruiting, Basketball, or Football. Ok, that last part is a lie, nothing has as many dumb opinions as Football.

    That being said, anyone who said you were a piece of trash also had a dumb opinion. Again, that happens. You got what, 2 or so negs? Maybe 3-4? If that really does scare you away then yes, please don't post here. The post I am quoting, saying it was dumb to post it? Good post, just don't take the wrong lesson from it.

    And @SydneyCarton, if @Homesickhorn had made this post first instead of several posts defending it, nothing would have happened. I very sincerely say this when I say I am sure that he really is a good dude. Most people are. But most of us don't know him. If his post here is dumb, it should get called out. And the great news is it works both ways - his real life isn't affected (or shouldn't be!) by negs or posts calling him out. There was no "echo chamber going batshit". Perhaps both of you should thicken the skin just a tad.

    • Hook 'Em 2
    • Like 2
  14. 1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

    Yeah, what a twit she is, right?  Again, she is more of a "man" -- if we define 'man" the way I was raised: having courage, honor, and integrity -- than any male GOP congresscritter.  Being female, she has no balls, yet she has more balls than any of those gutless fucking cowards.

    Seriously.  As for "real world experience," you know what I think is REALLY fucking valuable?  Having someone in Congress whose life experience is NOT "worked for daddy's company, hung out at the country club, and cruised into office based on a campaign financed by rich contributors who expect me to return the favor," but instead is "grew up in a lower middle class household, like most of America, held menial jobs, like most of America, and busted her ass to get where she is in a working class district."  Man, that sounds like a FUCKTON of "real world experience" to me, and it's something that is miserably absent from Congress -- you know, the folks who are supposed to represent "we the people."

    I've had enough of politicians who don't have any idea what it's fucking like to have to decide whether to pay the electric bill or the rent at the end of the month, who don't know what it's like to have doors slammed in your face because you don't come from the right family, or you look too "ethnic," who don't know what it's like to fucking scrap and struggle for everything you've got -- which is the lot of the MAJORITY of Americans, in one aspect or another.

    We're calling HER naive and clueless?  And not the fucking class of rich, recreational congresscritters and senators who have never had to worry about paying a single bill in their entire fucking lives?  THAT is "naive and clueless," folks.

    You forgot to call her a cunt also. You know, just in a funny, joking kind of way.

  15. 19 hours ago, Axiom of Choice said:

    I do not think BLM is trying to disrupt the nuclear family.  If I had to guess I would say the majority of those involved with the movement probably do not care about this issue one way or the other as it really has nothing to do with their fundamental tenets.  This is my point.  Why would a group organized around the idea that there is a gap in the normative claim that black lives matter (i.e. black lives ought to matter) and the descriptive claim that black lives matter (i.e. black lives do not seem to matter in modern society based on the way they are treated) make such statements on an ideological divide in which one’s views either way are neither necessary nor sufficient for acceptance of the BLM fundamental tenets?

     

    On 7/6/2020 at 10:49 AM, Axiom of Choice said:

    Ok but none of that is disruption of the nuclear family.  It would be needed and welcomed support in most cases.  Advocating extended family support and broader community support is not at all against or a disruption of the nuclear family and in fact would make it more stable.  

     

    7 hours ago, Axiom of Choice said:

    Well the claim that the BLM organization wants to "disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure" is clearly antiwe. 

    Since you are more knowledgeable on the tenets & goals of the BLM organization, do you know if any of the founders or primary organizers were marxist?  Does the group currently have goals that would be categorized as marxist?   

    Sorry for not responding earlier, work is crazy right now, but how do you square the first sentence of the first post with the statements in the others? You (and others referenced in my earlier post, who are not exactly paragons of reasoning) keep posting claims that BLM wants to disrupt the nuclear family. If you don't think they are, why are you saying so?

  16. @Axiom of Choice For someone who seems to want to elevate the discourse of discussion, you have a strange way of showing it.

     From your initial post where you (like @GRHorn, @workswithseed, and @Onboard 2.0) you immediately claim that BLM has as an objective to disrupt the nuclear family. Whether through conscious choice or willful misinterpretation you leave out words in the sentence, changing the meaning. You can say that @Huckleberry was rude or dismissive in his reply, where he pointed out the other words in the objective (e.g. the requirement for nuclear families) but I am not sure what you expected. Especially given your multiple posts on logic / philosophy, I would hypothesize that you are certainly capable of parsing the sentence.

    So, are any of the following thoughts correct?

    1- You hadn't read the statement so accepted the notion from others that BLM is trying to disrupt nuclear families.

    2- You read the statement but missed the notion of requirement.

    3- You read the statement, saw the notion of requirement, but you think that this is the same thing as disrupting the family itself.

    4- You willfully misrepresented the objective of BLM in order to make a point (maybe about marketing)?

    5 - Something else?

  17. 1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

      

     

    highly likely, not highly likely. 

     

    My point is that hyperbolics about the 0.0001% are not reality based.

    But if you really want to hyperventilate about something, I would keep a very close eye on the mail in balloting process. Seems rife for abuse, and I am not talking domestic manipulation. 

     

    While I assume you are throwing that 0.0001% number out there as your baseline, I don't think it is absurd to say you are several orders of magnitude too low on that. I think it is way closer to 1%. Still not likely, to be sure. But that is enough for me to at least suggest we should think about this contingency. 

  18. 14 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

    What do you think has a greater likelihood of occurring:

    1. Substantial shift to the use of mail in ballots during pandemic facilitates opportunities for substantive foreign interference in election.

    2. Trump is arrested by the secret service for refusing to leave office.

     

    We should be able to agree that both are non-zero probabilities, but which do you think more likely and how much so?   

    i think the idea of secret service arresting trump is super low. But that is not the only concern. Also, what does option 1 even mean? I think we will have a substantial shift in use of mail-in ballots. In your writing, it seems that this necessitates opportunity for substantive foreign interference. I do not think that foreign interference is likely, so how would option 1 even be assessed?

    Just to be complete, I would say option 1 is likely (assuming as you did that mail-in ballots necessarily facilitate opportunities for foreign interference. I think option 2 is unlikely.

    How would you rate the likelihood of the following additional items?

    1B - Substantial shift to the use of mail in ballots during pandemic leads to Trump / Barr / Other national Republicans claiming interference without evidence?

    2B - Trump uses this claim to prepare some kind of legal challenge to election, leading to some level of chaos / confusion as to next president?

     

  19. 2 hours ago, HornOnTheBayou said:

    So this thread is now about architecture. The Trump thread is about Mexican food outside of Texas. I assume the Covid threads will soon turn into discussions about, I don't know, maybe favorite reptiles?

     

×
×
  • Create New...