Perhaps it's a question of expediency and avoiding further danger to others that IMO some here are facetiously calling for these women to "get their asses kicked" or somesuch. I dunno, I didn't take the opening thread too seriously or literally. It does sound like (and this isn't passing judgement) the scene just kept getting more ridiculous as the antics kept coming from these two women. I thought the point was that the bad situation was exacerbated by not subduing these women as quickly and suredly as possible, and that if it were people of a different gender or race or something, then that's exactly what would have happened instead of this fiasco.
Perhaps it's a question of expediency and avoiding further danger to others that IMO some here are facetiously calling for these women to "get their asses kicked" or somesuch. I dunno, I didn't take the opening thread too seriously or literally. It does sound like (and this isn't passing judgement) the scene just kept getting more ridiculous as the antics kept coming from these two women. I thought the point was that the bad situation was exacerbated by not subduing these women as quickly and suredly as possible, and that if it were people of a different gender or race or something, then that's exactly what would have happened instead of this fiasco.
Then advocate using as much force as necessary- don't pile on barbaric and arguably misogynistic instructions. Remember, those words are from someone who's anti-women views are well-known. So many of us really doubt he's not speaking somewhat literally. Just another avenue to thinly veil his contempt for women- *barely* hiding behind facetiousness. He's practically giddy at the notion of physically abusing women. The point of the original post is that women should be treated just as poorly as black men. I share bunge's view that it's completely offensive and reprehensible.
Then advocate using as much force as necessary- don't pile on barbaric and arguably misogynistic instructions. Remember, those words are from someone who's anti-women views are well-known. So many of us really doubt he's not speaking somewhat literally. Just another avenue to thinly veil his contempt for women- *barely* hiding behind facetiousness. He's practically giddy at the notion of physically abusing women. The point of the original post is that women should be treated just as poorly as black men. I share bunge's view that it's completely offensive and reprehensible.
To put it quite plainly, you are high.
My views are not anti-woman at all. The only people who would think so are those who advocate a position of privilege for women instead of a position of equality. Your opinion is exactly the same as those who declare people who are against quotas are racist.
To suggest I would enjoy watching women get beat is just a cheap ad-hominem attack. You use it since you have nothing else to stand on.
As for what Grove posted, it is full of nice platitudes, but suffers in its application. Lets look at it in this instance. I compared the treatement of the women with the likely treatement of two six foot tall black men.
The women were allowed to hit two cops in the face and kick a window out of their patrol car. I said that if the two black men were acting that way, they likely would have escalated the level of force used. I also said this would be true for myself, and bunge.
So Grove and you claim I should advocate the privileged treatement these women received. I am NOT going to argue that myself, bunge, or two 6ft tall black men should be allowed to hit two cops in the face, get close enough to grab their weapon, or be allowed to kick out a window in their squad car and expect to be treated in a manner where little to no force is applied. That is a recipe for having a lot of dead cops. The cops know that and apply plenty of force in those instances. There are times we end up arguing about whether it is excessive when the person ends up DEAD.
No one here claimed the force was excessive. You claim to doubt whether my tongue was in cheek when I basically advocated a position of the police not endangering themselves. We you can doubt and cast accusations all you want Mr. McCarthy but I will not stop advocating equality over privilege no matter who the parties may be. I will do so even when you disagree and especially when you substitute accusations and innuendo for reasoning.
My position is simple and clear: use as much force as necessary to contain a subject -regardless of gender, race, or ethnicity. That's really not something you should disagree with. The police should not treat women unfairly just because they brutalized Rodney King and many others like him. That's also something you shouldn't disagree with. Together, let's advocate fair treatment for all- not special treatment or police brutality.
....but I will not stop advocating equality over privilege no matter who the parties may be.
certain privileges come with being different. women are weaker, men are stronger. women are pretty, men are hairy. you can't disreguard these realities when you try to equate one set of circumstances with another. it's just the way that it is.
certain privileges come with being different. women are weaker, men are stronger. women are pretty, men are hairy. you can't disreguard these realities when you try to equate one set of circumstances with another. it's just the way that it is.
Trumptman wrongly thinks the standard should be equal treatment. That's just not a sufficient standard because police treatment could be equally good or bad. I think the best standard to advocate is fair treatment. If only he replaced "equal" with "fair", I would have responded to you with the following:
"I really don't see a reason why you disagree with Trumptman's statement. In that sentence, he essentially argues for fair police treatment for all. I admire that stance, agreeing completely with it."
Trumptman wrongly thinks the standard should be equal treatment. That's just not a sufficient standard because police treatment could be equally good or bad. I think the best standard to advocate is fair treatment. If only he replaced "equal" with "fair", I would have responded to you with the following:
"I really don't see a reason why you disagree with Trumptman's statement. In that sentence, he essentially argues for fair police treatment for all. I admire that stance, agreeing completely with it."
or how about reasonable force. then you're not comparing one set of circumstances with another and wondering if it's fair or not.
My position is simple and clear: use as much force as necessary to contain a subject -regardless of gender, race, or ethnicity. That's really not something you should disagree with. The police should not treat women unfairly just because they brutalized Rodney King and many others like him. That's also something you shouldn't disagree with. Together, let's advocate fair treatment for all- not special treatment or police brutality.
The problem with your argument is that people can basically argue that the police, on a spot basis should instantly have evaluated that they were "less" of a threat and should have responded in a less strident manner with regard to the exact same crime.
I don't mean this on a situational basis, I mean it on a personal basis because that is basically the point here. We have assault, resisting arrest, etc. Those have appropriate responses that the police are allowed to take. You however appear to be taking that a step farther. So, for example the police might have to tolerate being assaulted by a woman since the police cannot guarantee that the assault will harm them to the same degree as perhaps me or the someone else attempting it.
That to me says they should take an increased risk simply because the subject is a woman. I'm not willing to advocate for that.
You say use as much force as is necessary. However you have to then consider the factor that determines what amount of force is necessary. The risk of harm is what determines the force the officer is allowed to take. My contention is not that the officer should be allowed to use MORE force, but rather that they should consider all subjects to carry the same amount of risk when committing the same crime.
you gotta consider the reaction of the onlookers who are likely to be intoxicated and may be incited by seeing women getting slammed into a squad car. the police i'm sure were aware of how a bar crowd might react to any perceived mis-treatment.
now if this happened in a residential area, or somewhere else less crowded, the police might have been less lienient. they wouldn't have had to consider the likelyhood of a riot type reaction from the intoxicated onlookers.
Glyph makes a very good point here. Call it politics or whatever, the police have more to think about than the immediate problem if it escalates beyond the immediate offenders.
I'm honestly not sure what the problem is here. Two girls got drunk and acted stupidly and violently (as sometimes happens). They were arrested and held overnight, and they will go to court on charges for what they did.
I'm honestly not sure what the problem is here. Two girls got drunk and acted stupidly and violently (as sometimes happens). They were arrested and held overnight, and they will go to court on charges for what they did.
But they were brought into custody. Why is there any need for more force?
In reference to my earlier comments about equal treatment for violent arrestees, I was talking specifically about the actual time of the arrest... not what happens after the arrest / at the station, IOW.
My point was strictly about what it takes to calm someone down enough, in order to get them seated in the cruiser and subsequently drive them to the station... without fear of the officers in question being injured or prevented from driving safely. That's all.
There isn't a big deal. I made a joke about the differences in how people are treated in society. Some people claimed the joke was advocating violence. We then went back and forth about the true intentions of the joke/language.
So basically some people can't take a joke and want to censor others, or call into question their views and motives, which we know is also an attempt at censorship.
They do this of course while proclaiming themselves champions of free speech.
There isn't a big deal. I made a joke about the differences in how people are treated in society. Some people claimed the joke was advocating violence. We then went back and forth about the true intentions of the joke/language.
Oh. So it's just a typical thread, you mean?
Quote:
So basically some people can't take a joke and want to censor others, or call into question their views and motives, which we know is also an attempt at censorship.
You're kidding, right? Are you high, too? All debate is an attempt at censorship? Am I trying to censor you right now by challenging this assertion?
You're kidding, right? Are you high, too? All debate is an attempt at censorship? Am I trying to censor you right now by challenging this assertion?
Debating someone's ideas is never censorship. I made quite clear the adhominem attacks in this thread. Calling someone hateful and that they would wish harm on a group isn't debate. It is an attack that attempts to silence.
We've tried to address some of the comments made in here with the members who posted them in private. Things should be OK now.
The thread seemed silly enough to me too. The original comments were over-the-top but I took the hyperbole as something less than sinister. Others did not. Probably in any other context, no one would have taken the thread seriously, but in AO, people are on edge, defensive, a bit sensitive and suspect. That true of nearly everyone as far as I can see. While we don't want to censor too much, people get their noses bent out of shape rather easily here, and everyone has to moderate their own comments appropriately.
Comments
Originally posted by BuonRotto
Perhaps it's a question of expediency and avoiding further danger to others that IMO some here are facetiously calling for these women to "get their asses kicked" or somesuch. I dunno, I didn't take the opening thread too seriously or literally. It does sound like (and this isn't passing judgement) the scene just kept getting more ridiculous as the antics kept coming from these two women. I thought the point was that the bad situation was exacerbated by not subduing these women as quickly and suredly as possible, and that if it were people of a different gender or race or something, then that's exactly what would have happened instead of this fiasco.
Then advocate using as much force as necessary- don't pile on barbaric and arguably misogynistic instructions. Remember, those words are from someone who's anti-women views are well-known. So many of us really doubt he's not speaking somewhat literally. Just another avenue to thinly veil his contempt for women- *barely* hiding behind facetiousness. He's practically giddy at the notion of physically abusing women. The point of the original post is that women should be treated just as poorly as black men. I share bunge's view that it's completely offensive and reprehensible.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Then advocate using as much force as necessary- don't pile on barbaric and arguably misogynistic instructions. Remember, those words are from someone who's anti-women views are well-known. So many of us really doubt he's not speaking somewhat literally. Just another avenue to thinly veil his contempt for women- *barely* hiding behind facetiousness. He's practically giddy at the notion of physically abusing women. The point of the original post is that women should be treated just as poorly as black men. I share bunge's view that it's completely offensive and reprehensible.
To put it quite plainly, you are high.
My views are not anti-woman at all. The only people who would think so are those who advocate a position of privilege for women instead of a position of equality. Your opinion is exactly the same as those who declare people who are against quotas are racist.
To suggest I would enjoy watching women get beat is just a cheap ad-hominem attack. You use it since you have nothing else to stand on.
As for what Grove posted, it is full of nice platitudes, but suffers in its application. Lets look at it in this instance. I compared the treatement of the women with the likely treatement of two six foot tall black men.
The women were allowed to hit two cops in the face and kick a window out of their patrol car. I said that if the two black men were acting that way, they likely would have escalated the level of force used. I also said this would be true for myself, and bunge.
So Grove and you claim I should advocate the privileged treatement these women received. I am NOT going to argue that myself, bunge, or two 6ft tall black men should be allowed to hit two cops in the face, get close enough to grab their weapon, or be allowed to kick out a window in their squad car and expect to be treated in a manner where little to no force is applied. That is a recipe for having a lot of dead cops. The cops know that and apply plenty of force in those instances. There are times we end up arguing about whether it is excessive when the person ends up DEAD.
No one here claimed the force was excessive. You claim to doubt whether my tongue was in cheek when I basically advocated a position of the police not endangering themselves. We you can doubt and cast accusations all you want Mr. McCarthy but I will not stop advocating equality over privilege no matter who the parties may be. I will do so even when you disagree and especially when you substitute accusations and innuendo for reasoning.
Nick
....but I will not stop advocating equality over privilege no matter who the parties may be.
certain privileges come with being different. women are weaker, men are stronger. women are pretty, men are hairy. you can't disreguard these realities when you try to equate one set of circumstances with another. it's just the way that it is.
Originally posted by glyph
certain privileges come with being different. women are weaker, men are stronger. women are pretty, men are hairy. you can't disreguard these realities when you try to equate one set of circumstances with another. it's just the way that it is.
Trumptman wrongly thinks the standard should be equal treatment. That's just not a sufficient standard because police treatment could be equally good or bad. I think the best standard to advocate is fair treatment. If only he replaced "equal" with "fair", I would have responded to you with the following:
"I really don't see a reason why you disagree with Trumptman's statement. In that sentence, he essentially argues for fair police treatment for all. I admire that stance, agreeing completely with it."
Trumptman wrongly thinks the standard should be equal treatment. That's just not a sufficient standard because police treatment could be equally good or bad. I think the best standard to advocate is fair treatment. If only he replaced "equal" with "fair", I would have responded to you with the following:
"I really don't see a reason why you disagree with Trumptman's statement. In that sentence, he essentially argues for fair police treatment for all. I admire that stance, agreeing completely with it."
or how about reasonable force. then you're not comparing one set of circumstances with another and wondering if it's fair or not.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
My position is simple and clear: use as much force as necessary to contain a subject -regardless of gender, race, or ethnicity. That's really not something you should disagree with. The police should not treat women unfairly just because they brutalized Rodney King and many others like him. That's also something you shouldn't disagree with. Together, let's advocate fair treatment for all- not special treatment or police brutality.
The problem with your argument is that people can basically argue that the police, on a spot basis should instantly have evaluated that they were "less" of a threat and should have responded in a less strident manner with regard to the exact same crime.
I don't mean this on a situational basis, I mean it on a personal basis because that is basically the point here. We have assault, resisting arrest, etc. Those have appropriate responses that the police are allowed to take. You however appear to be taking that a step farther. So, for example the police might have to tolerate being assaulted by a woman since the police cannot guarantee that the assault will harm them to the same degree as perhaps me or the someone else attempting it.
That to me says they should take an increased risk simply because the subject is a woman. I'm not willing to advocate for that.
You say use as much force as is necessary. However you have to then consider the factor that determines what amount of force is necessary. The risk of harm is what determines the force the officer is allowed to take. My contention is not that the officer should be allowed to use MORE force, but rather that they should consider all subjects to carry the same amount of risk when committing the same crime.
That is both fair and equitable.
Nick
now if this happened in a residential area, or somewhere else less crowded, the police might have been less lienient. they wouldn't have had to consider the likelyhood of a riot type reaction from the intoxicated onlookers.
What's the big deal?
Originally posted by midwinter
I'm honestly not sure what the problem is here. Two girls got drunk and acted stupidly and violently (as sometimes happens). They were arrested and held overnight, and they will go to court on charges for what they did.
What's the big deal?
i agree...
-Neø
Originally posted by midwinter
...
What's the big deal?
They weren't beaten by the cops or shot for holding a cell phone.
Originally posted by Scott
They weren't beaten by the cops or shot for holding a cell phone.
Neither were lots and lots and lots of people.
Again, what's the big deal?
Originally posted by bunge
But they were brought into custody. Why is there any need for more force?
In reference to my earlier comments about equal treatment for violent arrestees, I was talking specifically about the actual time of the arrest... not what happens after the arrest / at the station, IOW.
My point was strictly about what it takes to calm someone down enough, in order to get them seated in the cruiser and subsequently drive them to the station... without fear of the officers in question being injured or prevented from driving safely. That's all.
Originally posted by midwinter
Neither were lots and lots and lots of people.
Again, what's the big deal?
There isn't a big deal. I made a joke about the differences in how people are treated in society. Some people claimed the joke was advocating violence. We then went back and forth about the true intentions of the joke/language.
So basically some people can't take a joke and want to censor others, or call into question their views and motives, which we know is also an attempt at censorship.
They do this of course while proclaiming themselves champions of free speech.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
There isn't a big deal. I made a joke about the differences in how people are treated in society. Some people claimed the joke was advocating violence. We then went back and forth about the true intentions of the joke/language.
Oh. So it's just a typical thread, you mean?
So basically some people can't take a joke and want to censor others, or call into question their views and motives, which we know is also an attempt at censorship.
You're kidding, right? Are you high, too? All debate is an attempt at censorship? Am I trying to censor you right now by challenging this assertion?
Originally posted by midwinter
Oh. So it's just a typical thread, you mean?
You're kidding, right? Are you high, too? All debate is an attempt at censorship? Am I trying to censor you right now by challenging this assertion?
Debating someone's ideas is never censorship. I made quite clear the adhominem attacks in this thread. Calling someone hateful and that they would wish harm on a group isn't debate. It is an attack that attempts to silence.
Nick
The thread seemed silly enough to me too. The original comments were over-the-top but I took the hyperbole as something less than sinister. Others did not. Probably in any other context, no one would have taken the thread seriously, but in AO, people are on edge, defensive, a bit sensitive and suspect. That true of nearly everyone as far as I can see. While we don't want to censor too much, people get their noses bent out of shape rather easily here, and everyone has to moderate their own comments appropriately.
And now, on with the beatings?