hits type of behaviour is so uniquely american. unfortunately, with the ubiquity of american culture, it has now spread to most english speaking countries.

I would just like to say to both sides of the "who escalated first?" argument, that I'm pretty sure everyone can agree that if police, in general, didn't have (far too many) proven and documented instances of excessive force and corrupt behaviour afterwards, the girl would have been far less likely to have acted the way she did.

It's time for "the police police the police" to mean something correct and right, and not be a derogatory catechism. The police need to uphold the law. Period. Whomever breaks it.

@newtboy and @BSR

I used to engage with @bobknight33 using logic and facts. Whenever I could decisively refute his points he completely ignored my comments. Often he goes back to the same well in the future after I'd conclusively shut his arguments down.

That is not the behaviour of someone interested in any kind of serious debate. That is disingenuous or intentional avoidance of anything that might correct his ignorance. I cannot and will not respect anyone who refuses to even acknowledge the arguments made by the other side. (and don't throw that back at me, I engage with him, he just throws shit into the void and avoids engaging with me)

So, because one guy, Noah, sucked hard as a proselytizer, God murdered everyone else?
It must have been his failing since his message was so true and undeniable, yet it was denied and ignored, right? Why not just kill him and prove the message by miracle? Better, why not make everyone KNOW, not guess or believe, he exists and go from there. Using unverified middle men to spread your message is just plain stupid when you don't have to, and downright evil when you then torture those who don't accept it from those con men.

Like I said, complete incessant obedient subservience and worship of himself and his son under threat of eternal torture for any found lacking. That's narcissistic insecurity with absolute power, not love. Edit:part of love is accepting or at least tolerating disagreement, even disagreeable behaviour, and murdering people you find unsavory is not tolerance, sending them to hell is far closer to hate than love.
You don't threaten people into "loving" you out of love. (and worshiping out of fear isn't love)
You don't murder millions because you love them, even when they're being naughty.

I believe in a guy named Jesus, he could walk on water when it freezes, and turn water into wine using his vineyard, but his mom was no virgin and his dad was a human being. Am I good?

You think this is exceptional?

Let's create an imaginary group, we'll call them Kopz. Now, Kopz are trusted. Kopz are rarely, if ever prosecuted if they commit crimes in the line of duty. If a member of Kopz does something bad, it's his friends, other Kopz who will investigate. If he's actually caught and his fellow Kopz turn him over for prosecution, well the Kopz have a very cozy relationship with prosecutors, so he'll probably have a friend there too. Oh and Kopz are allowed to carry guns and have a monopoly on legal violence.

What kind of person do you think would want to join Kopz?

Now, let's say the people who pick who is and who isn't allowed to join the Kopz, are themselves Kopz. After several generations of inbreeding, what sort of people do you think they'll select to join their fraternity?

These guys only ever get busted when there is absolute incontrovertible video evidence, and even then the first words out of every police chief's mouth inevitably are, "Well, the video doesn't tell the WHOLE story. We need to know the context before we can decide if the behaviour was inappropriate." (guess what, he's a Kopz too!)

You could... you know, just establish an effective oversight body that actually punishes cops who step out of line and break the law. Combine that with proper social programs to keep the poorest from being so desperate they see no recourse but to resort to criminal behaviour and hey, just like magic things get better!

Not exactly rocket science.

Honestly, and I'm sorry if I appear to be picking on you here, WTF is up with this bullshit. Every other Westernized democracy has a better record with their police, but Americans just throw their hands up and say, "Golly gee, if it ain't workin' here, I guess there's no solution, 'cuz 'Merica is the best at everythin'." PLENTY of other countries manage just fine. And you know what? They ALSO have lower crime rates and lower recidivism rates.

All you have to do is look beyond your own borders for solutions instead of assuming you know best.

She's gotten used to it, but still checks it first, which is perfect behaviour.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvwUO2dpAzA&t=0s

As long as this behaviour is rampant there are no "good cops"

There are bad cops, cops who support the bad cops, cops who look the other way, and cops who get fired.

Most places the cops have the final word in who gets hired. You think they're going to bring anyone who gives the impression of being a "good cop" (aka not a "team player") on to the force?

As soon as I see cracks in the "blue wall" I might start to believe there are some good cops, but until they stand up they're not good. They're just supporting a broken system, no matter their intentions.

But... he said he'd get all the best people.
He picked these criminals. Are you saying it's better if he picked people who were already criminals when he hired them? I mean, even if he picked at random, there's no way he'd end up with so many criminals in his cabinet.
Obviously he has an affinity for criminals at the very least. Can you come up with a better explanation? Do you think that's a good or a bad thing that he hires so many criminals?
Also don't forget he pardons unrepentant criminals like Sheriff Joe.
Trump is a con man. Like all con men, he attracts his own kind. He's shown up in several indictments where they have proof of his criminal behaviour, he just hasn't been indicted yet because (like most dictators) he enjoys special protections against prosecution.

It might be a little hard for them to applaud a guy who told them multiple times that if they investigate his crimes he'll shut the government down. (I suppose those actions don't strike you as the behaviour of a guilty man.)
I suppose you think the Dems should stand up and applaud when (insert name of any deplored dictator here) makes a good point?

He's evil. He's guilty. He's doing all sorts of things which hurt the country and drive people apart. How the hell can anyone take his calls for unity as anything other than trolling at this point?

Context matters, Bob (or Ivan, Ludmilla, or Yuri, whatever your real name is).

@BSR

I guess even with my edit my last sentence was unclear. I’ll try and straighten that out, I meant to say I want people to stop judging each other by race, gender or any other ‘team’ membership mentality.
Judging people based upon unalterable traits like race and gender is wrong.
Judging people based upon identity with a religion, polticial party our other group, generally bad still and better to look at individual opinions. Some leeway obviously as there is an element of choice too so if your anti-vax, yeah I’ve fot some opinoons on some of your life choices.
Judging people based ipon their behaviours and choices, this is fundamental and necessary. We should err on kindness to one another, but that includes judging cruel and violent people and protecting their victims.

As relates to this commercial, it clearly generalizes most(arguably all) men as complicit with the peoblem. Thats wrong!

It's great that you're raising your kids to be respectful of others.

But I don't understand the "judging" comment. Are you saying I shouldn't judge people for violent behaviour or harassment?

And yes, it is akin to saying Muslims should condemn violent behaviour done in the name of their religion (and to be clear, most Muslims DO condemn that behaviour).

I don't think this ad portrays all men as abusers, but it does portray all men as complicit by not speaking out, and I agree with that. We haven't done enough and it is our responsibility. "If you see something, say something" would do far more good in calling out shitty behaviour to other people than in the tiny % of terrorist acts.

I was raised to respect other people, regardless of race, gender, creed or religion. I was taught that it was right to not give differential treatment to others because of race and gender, and to reserve differential treatment for other people facing differential circumstance, ability or behaviour. I believe in these as important fundamental values, and I consider those values worth defending.

When I see somebody painting an entire race or gender as the 'same' and as a problem, I get defensive of them. Here's how the commercial portrays men:
"It's been going on far too long... Making the same old excuses"
Entire line of men ALL chanting boys will be boys
"But something finally changed...And there will be no going back"

That isn't just a statement against bad behavior of men, it's a statement that ALL men have been participating in or excusing the bad behavior. At best, the message is urging men as needing to take an especial roll in rooting out violent and sexual harassment. That's identical to the logic of urging menmuslims as needing to take an especial roll in rooting out terrorismviolent and sexual harassment. Albeit, arguably worse in that your religion is at least a choice(trigger non-binary proponents).

Yeah, heaven forfend we end up with a generation of men who think women deserve respect or that violence is a last resort.

That’d be a fucking nightmare.

Toxic masculinity is absolutely a thing, and it harms men as much as women.

But it’s called “toxic” masculinity for a reason. If I said “shit this toxic water is killing us”, would you think I was implying that ALL water is toxic? Of course not. There’s nothing wrong with masculinity or masculine behaviour. But when you define aggressive, predatory behaviour as “masculine” then of course all masculinity is bad. But the problem isn’t masculinity, it’s your fucked up definiton of it. Hence the differentiator “toxic”.

TL;DR don’t be an asshole and no one will bother you for just being a man.

Watched it once after seeing the outrage, yawned and moved on.

Then I saw guys like this adamant that the commercial wasn't characterizing all men, but the bad actors/behaviour, so I re-watched it as my first lazy watch had left me feeling like I could see how people felt it was at least targeting most men.

Here's what I saw second watch:
"It's been going on far too long... Making the same old excuses"
Entire line of men ALL chanting boys will be boys
"But something finally changed...And there will be no going back"

Yeah, I get where people are saying this commercial is painting at least a majority of men as bad actors, and that the good news is that is finally changing. It's even the most straightforward reading of the message to me, and you have to do a bit of mental benefit of the doubt to dismiss the now things are changing as less than an indictment of previous generations of most/all men.