>> ^quantumushroom:

I take no pleasure in Britain quickening demise; anywhere socialism rises, freedom falls, that's how it always ends. Fortunately, neither my being a bot or you being a non-expert will make this explanation difficult:
People have unlimited wants and a supposed set of finite needs. When socialists attempt to satisfy basic needs (with other people's money) it works at first, until people realize they can satisfy more of their wants by relabeling them needs (or rights). Health care is a right. Daycare is a right. Living wage is a right, etc.
British "conservatism" is a far cry from American conservatism. Define it as, "Too little, too late".
Britain leads Europe in the proportion of single mothers and co-leads the European Union in violent crime, alcohol and drug abuse, obesity and sexually transmitted diseases. Yep, that must all be due to conservatism! Certainly the welfare state wouldn't destroy people's interest in helping themselves.


>> ^dannym3141:
>> ^csnel3:
>> ^quantumushroom:
Oh, where to begin?
There are probably dozens of these moments on the scorecard of every celebrity, great and small. I'll even give Obama a free pass for calling Hawaii "ASIA" during one of his many campaign stops taxpayer-funded vacations important meetings. Props to the libmedia who downplay His Earness's gaffes. His larger gaffes, like the economy, price of gasoline, failures as Commander-In-Chief, we'll leave to the few history books not written by leftards.
Referring to this BBC show: no one across the pond should be calling anyone here dumb. USA may be almost a police state, but Britain's been disarmed and defeated by socialism for decades. Bankrupt Eurounion. Smile for the 10,000,000 cameras, serfs.
Wales? Not enough to even register one who-gives-a-shit. Last time I heard of anything Welsh was a maintenance man killed by a werewolf in Stephen King's Silver Bullet.
Bush flew jets. You're a spoiled singer. Deal.
You're wearing me down QM. I actually agree with almost everything you just said. Will this cost me some power points or something?
Really though I dont respond well to criticisms from across the pond right now, I dont think they have our back, I'm not sure they have their own back.

Heh. I guess i better say something like "Welcome to the UK, bitch!" Nice insult. But don't get too in-depth with QM, i suspect he's actually just a cleverly programmed bot that repeats political catchphrases and buzzwords from fox news.
For example - margaret thatcher was in power up until 1990 and elected 11 years before that. So i think it's fairly safe to say that she was in charge of "Britain" 20 years ago. Margaret thatcher was not a socialist - she was incredibly critical of it, and her policies reflected that.
Many of Britain's big state owned companies/whatever were privatised, john major followed and was himself a thatcherite, followed by labour around the millennium who were more willing to adopt in-place conservative economic policies.
So it's relatively safe to say that britain has become significantly less socialist since 30 years ago and was well into that stride 20 years ago.
But of course, he's just a political catchphrase bot, that's why he said "Britain's been defeated by socialism since...", there's no meaning behind it.
I'm no expert on politics (which makes me immediately more qualified than QM), but i think one word you couldn't apply to margaret thatcher's britain is socialist.
We're IN a shit state because of thatcher. The Britain we all remember fondly? Amazing NHS, schools, industry, army, politeness, fairness? That's pre-80s britain, dude.



Then you have once more constructed a circular argument in which you win.

If socialism is in place, we are defeated by socialism.
If socialism is not in place, we are defeated by socialism?

You leave no criteria for the answer to be any different, as far as i can tell this argument leads to the idea that even if socialism didn't exist we'd be defeated by it.

I take no pleasure in Britain quickening demise; anywhere socialism rises, freedom falls, that's how it always ends. Fortunately, neither my being a bot or you being a non-expert will make this explanation difficult:

People have unlimited wants and a supposed set of finite needs. When socialists attempt to satisfy basic needs (with other people's money) it works at first, until people realize they can satisfy more of their wants by relabeling them needs (or rights). Health care is a right. Daycare is a right. Living wage is a right, etc.

British "conservatism" is a far cry from American conservatism. Define it as, "Too little, too late".

Britain leads Europe in the proportion of single mothers and co-leads the European Union in violent crime, alcohol and drug abuse, obesity and sexually transmitted diseases. Yep, that must all be due to conservatism! Certainly the welfare state wouldn't destroy people's interest in helping themselves.




>> ^dannym3141:

>> ^csnel3:
>> ^quantumushroom:
Oh, where to begin?
There are probably dozens of these moments on the scorecard of every celebrity, great and small. I'll even give Obama a free pass for calling Hawaii "ASIA" during one of his many campaign stops taxpayer-funded vacations important meetings. Props to the libmedia who downplay His Earness's gaffes. His larger gaffes, like the economy, price of gasoline, failures as Commander-In-Chief, we'll leave to the few history books not written by leftards.
Referring to this BBC show: no one across the pond should be calling anyone here dumb. USA may be almost a police state, but Britain's been disarmed and defeated by socialism for decades. Bankrupt Eurounion. Smile for the 10,000,000 cameras, serfs.
Wales? Not enough to even register one who-gives-a-shit. Last time I heard of anything Welsh was a maintenance man killed by a werewolf in Stephen King's Silver Bullet.
Bush flew jets. You're a spoiled singer. Deal.
You're wearing me down QM. I actually agree with almost everything you just said. Will this cost me some power points or something?
Really though I dont respond well to criticisms from across the pond right now, I dont think they have our back, I'm not sure they have their own back.

Heh. I guess i better say something like "Welcome to the UK, bitch!" Nice insult. But don't get too in-depth with QM, i suspect he's actually just a cleverly programmed bot that repeats political catchphrases and buzzwords from fox news.
For example - margaret thatcher was in power up until 1990 and elected 11 years before that. So i think it's fairly safe to say that she was in charge of "Britain" 20 years ago. Margaret thatcher was not a socialist - she was incredibly critical of it, and her policies reflected that.
Many of Britain's big state owned companies/whatever were privatised, john major followed and was himself a thatcherite, followed by labour around the millennium who were more willing to adopt in-place conservative economic policies.
So it's relatively safe to say that britain has become significantly less socialist since 30 years ago and was well into that stride 20 years ago.
But of course, he's just a political catchphrase bot, that's why he said "Britain's been defeated by socialism since...", there's no meaning behind it.
I'm no expert on politics (which makes me immediately more qualified than QM), but i think one word you couldn't apply to margaret thatcher's britain is socialist.
We're IN a shit state because of thatcher. The Britain we all remember fondly? Amazing NHS, schools, industry, army, politeness, fairness? That's pre-80s britain, dude.

>> ^Crosswords:

Lobbyists should only be able to make their case during official recorded meetings. None of those dinner, club or trips to a Scottish golf course meetings; including staff working for the politician. Plus former staff members should not be allowed to lobby, ever. Obviously way too much temptation for corruption.


Should the same be had of a citizen writing his congressman? What would the legal difference be between a lobby and a "normal" person. If you try and legislate this, it will only be a matter of time before normal people get caught in the cross-hairs. My solution would be to roll back the responsibility of the government to regulate those things we hold dear and do it ourselves. New technology and know how is making "outsourcing" of major responsibilities no longer necessary. All to often, government officials have no real expertise on the things we want them to look after anyway, how many 60 year old technology minded Senators exist currently or ever? Which understand the intricacies of the biological world of the cell? To great the cost for such ignorant people. Best in our hands, best by our means. The creative solutions of interesting people and communities would be fair more beneficial to all than one monolithic, solution managed by fools. This has problems of its own, but is a far cry from the corruption that an overly legal, federal understanding of life holds for us...ask Russia.

Reading this blog made me remember reading this Wired story from way back when I thought Wired was a good magazine (GO Maximum PC!) and the quote that really caught my eye was "Everyone has their Steve-Jobs-the-asshole story." I think it stood out because, on TV at least, he seemed nice enough, but mostly I wanted ammunition for arguments with my Mac fanboy friends.

More recently I remember reading about Apple pulling an entire e-book collection from one publisher after said publisher produced an unauthorized biography with the double entendre title "iCon: Steve Jobs" which is a move that I consider a far cry from "Do no evil."

Even Steve Wozniak openly said: "I couldn't treat people the way he does"

But do geniuses need to be assholes?

I would say that there is a fine line between tough love and devaluing the people around you. That fence dance can make a C feel like an A; but it makes the kid who fails feel all the more hopeless.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Up until Lion I would completely disagree with you and say the UX of OS X is simply the best. Yes, I'm talking against Windows 7, Gnome, KDE et al. Now however, I'm starting to cast a wandering eye back towards Linux.

Windows 7 however, is a frigging awful experience any way you slice it. It's stupid little things like the alt-tab selecting whatever window is in the background when really you just want to cycle through the icons. Also, I can't believe they still haven't killed the dysfunctional bloatware ridden system tray. The retarded nanny-ware labyrinth that has to be navigated to connect to a wireless network makes my eyes bleed.

The way I'm feeling now is that all operating systems suck hard, but OS X sucks a little less, at least until Lion - which, again, is starting to suck much harder for all the reasons outlined in this video - and more.

Also, I don't give a shit about all the other "cult" crap you cite as a reason not to use an OS. I don't pick my computers based on style, other people's behaviour or religious beliefs - and IMO neither should you.


>> ^srd:

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Fuck Lion. I'm waiting for OSX Direwolf.

Fuck OS X. I've had these tinboxes (aka MacBook Pro) thrust on me by my ex-employer about a year ago. My last encounter with Apple computers before that was with a Mac Classic when I was in 10th grade. So I didn't really know what I was getting into. Before that I worked for 15 years on Linux.
At first I thought "Ok, Apple, you're all about UX and intuitive design. Enlighten me! (and lets forget the abomination that was itunes for the moment)". Oh boy was I sorely disappointed. The workflow that was thrust on me by MacOS X on the GUI side rubbed me the wrong way, regardless of which aspect. So I thought "Ok, fair enough, those were the default settings. Lets change things a bit.... Uh. Wait? That half dozen scared little options is _all_ I get to fiddle with?". Trying to google for solutions was just as sobering. Apple ignoring feature requests for over 8 years, other people frustrated with the same problems I was facing and the most frequent response to valid questions on (non-Apple) help sites wasn't a "I'm sorry that's not possible" but a condescending "Why would you even think of doing that?".
I lasted for one more day after that before installing Virtualbox and running a useable environment (for me) in there.
I'm not going even to get into the hardware aspects of these machines...
So what I'm taking away from my forced encounter of the turtleneck kind is, we're getting the worst of both worlds:
a) Apple is currently as arrogant as Microsoft was in the 90s
b) Apples user/fanboy base is just as bad as the Linux crowd was in the 90s.
=> It's a cult. They are producing overpriced, mediocre machines with mediocre UI that is a far cry from the intuitiveness that is so often touted.
I'm glad some people are escaping the Jobsian reality distortion field.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Fuck Lion. I'm waiting for OSX Direwolf.


Fuck OS X. I've had these tinboxes (aka MacBook Pro) thrust on me by my ex-employer about a year ago. My last encounter with Apple computers before that was with a Mac Classic when I was in 10th grade. So I didn't really know what I was getting into. Before that I worked for 15 years on Linux.

At first I thought "Ok, Apple, you're all about UX and intuitive design. Enlighten me! (and lets forget the abomination that was itunes for the moment)". Oh boy was I sorely disappointed. The workflow that was thrust on me by MacOS X on the GUI side rubbed me the wrong way, regardless of which aspect. So I thought "Ok, fair enough, those were the default settings. Lets change things a bit.... Uh. Wait? That half dozen scared little options is _all_ I get to fiddle with?". Trying to google for solutions was just as sobering. Apple ignoring feature requests for over 8 years, other people frustrated with the same problems I was facing and the most frequent response to valid questions on (non-Apple) help sites wasn't a "I'm sorry that's not possible" but a condescending "Why would you even think of doing that?".

I lasted for one more day after that before installing Virtualbox and running a useable environment (for me) in there.

I'm not going even to get into the hardware aspects of these machines...

So what I'm taking away from my forced encounter of the turtleneck kind is, we're getting the worst of both worlds:
a) Apple is currently as arrogant as Microsoft was in the 90s
b) Apples user/fanboy base is just as bad as the Linux crowd was in the 90s.

=> It's a cult. They are producing overpriced, mediocre machines with mediocre UI that is a far cry from the intuitiveness that is so often touted.

I'm glad some people are escaping the Jobsian reality distortion field.

You don't buy into that line of reasoning because it's inaccurate. The oppression is ongoing, though it has in many ways become less blatant and more systematic. The reason that you might "pay" for it, is because by virtue of being born into the world a white male (I assume), you benefit from a substantial amount of privilege compared to minority groups. The privilege you (and I, and all of us on the sift in different ways) enjoy is not due to any particular virtue or hard-work of our own, but because we were luck enough to be born into a certain group. When looked at that way, one sees that the whole point of minority rights groups IS equality, which is why they fight to bring their societal status UP to where you already benefit from being. And, yes, sometimes it means disadvantaging those who are at the top, in the name of an equal playing field.

To be clear, I think the women on the show are being cruel and insulting, but the idea that the actions of a few women, whether they call themselves feminists or not, are enough to damn all of feminism is RIDICULOUS. Do you think none of the civil rights movement have any validity because you disagree with the methods of Malcolm X?


>> ^blankfist:

>> ^Sarzy:
Women are allowed to be playfully sexist towards men for the same reason black people are allowed to be racist towards whites -- to make up for hundreds of years of oppression (that is still going on to some extent). It seems like a fair enough deal to me.

Hundreds of years of oppression by dead men. And now every future generation of white people must pay. I never bought into that line of reasoning. I hear it a lot, too.


Feminists do differentiate themselves. There are many different schools of thought within feminism.

And I think the political example is a bad one. The United States is a two party-system, where if you aren't an identified Democrat or Republican, you have little chance of being part of the next government. The parties encompass a highly diverse field, and sometimes, if you want to be in a position to make a difference, you have to associate with a few undesirables.

Furthermore, the Republican's outright endorsement of Tea Partiers is a far cry from feminists failing to condemn every single instance of "misandry".

Now that I think about it, why are we even asking feminists to differentiate themselves? There's already a differentiation. Feminism =/= Misandry.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

@hpqp
Would you consider the Tea Party Republicans actual republicans? I would--even if they are a psychotic division of the branch. Because the Tea Party Hijacked its way into the republican party and republicans are not doing enough to kick them out. Instead, they are catering more and more to them. They are speaking up less and less. Does that make me prejudice? It is exactly the same reasoning I am using in this argument so you have to say, "yes." And to that I ask, why?
And if you say, "No, it's different," then your applying wishy-washy standards...
But even if I am "wrong" in my belief, calling me "prejudice" was a bit low for you, and I think you lost that argument simply for that insult.
In other words, I look at Gwiz's comments and that's exactly what I am saying. I just used different words. They (feminists) need to call themselves something different to differentiate themselves from all the assholes. Exactly the same thing. So point out to him what an analogy fail he made please and the fact that he is prejudiced too, since he thinks the definition of feminist is close to what I think it is...

I think culture can be used to affect evolution. Not always in a good way, though. The fact that the intelligent don't fuck as often as the dumb is kind of scary to me.

In reply to this comment by criticalthud:
In reply to this comment by rottenseed:
I think it's simply a cultural evolution. We're breaking out of a 20 year oppression from freedom of speech known as "political correctness". I was listening to Louis CK the other day in an interview from a couple of years ago and he mentioned that his comedy used to be more "silly" and nonsense. He hadn't really found a voice for himself until this one joke that he told.

Half expecting the audience to gasp, he told them that he had a 3 year old daughter that was a "fucking asshole". The audience erupted with laughter. He then built on that joke and the next time he went on stage he told the first part, then said "I get the whole 'baby in the dumpster' thing". The crowd was dying of laughter. From story of personal evolution of an act, I deduce that we're all adjusting our compasses. We still know what ignorance is from the days of political correctness, but we're no longer afraid to offend others. We're now entering the "You don't have the right to not be offended" era.

In reply to this comment by criticalthud:
indeed. i'm wondering if the popularity of that type of comedy is indicative of some sort of positive trend in the evolution of the human consciousness. or maybe i'm just grasping for positive trends among the less interesting aspects of a singular species destroying the planet.



ha! delightful. "get over yourself comedy"! def. a far cry from amos and andy.
spot on. hopefully we are getting less petty as a species.
i've been kicking around the connection between evolution of the consciousness and cultural/societal evolution. something about w/out culture/society we'd be jabbing eachother with pointy sticks. culture as either an evolution lubricant or as the primary propellant. the pretty hip too on the idea of the internet, being a cultural phenomenon, propelling evolution based on information exchange.

In reply to this comment by rottenseed:
I think it's simply a cultural evolution. We're breaking out of a 20 year oppression from freedom of speech known as "political correctness". I was listening to Louis CK the other day in an interview from a couple of years ago and he mentioned that his comedy used to be more "silly" and nonsense. He hadn't really found a voice for himself until this one joke that he told.

Half expecting the audience to gasp, he told them that he had a 3 year old daughter that was a "fucking asshole". The audience erupted with laughter. He then built on that joke and the next time he went on stage he told the first part, then said "I get the whole 'baby in the dumpster' thing". The crowd was dying of laughter. From story of personal evolution of an act, I deduce that we're all adjusting our compasses. We still know what ignorance is from the days of political correctness, but we're no longer afraid to offend others. We're now entering the "You don't have the right to not be offended" era.

In reply to this comment by criticalthud:
indeed. i'm wondering if the popularity of that type of comedy is indicative of some sort of positive trend in the evolution of the human consciousness. or maybe i'm just grasping for positive trends among the less interesting aspects of a singular species destroying the planet.



ha! delightful. "get over yourself comedy"! def. a far cry from amos and andy.
spot on. hopefully we are getting less petty as a species.
i've been kicking around the connection between evolution of the consciousness and cultural/societal evolution. something about w/out culture/society we'd be jabbing eachother with pointy sticks. culture as either an evolution lubricant or as the primary propellant. the pretty hip too on the idea of the internet, being a cultural phenomenon, propelling evolution based on information exchange.

@hpqp

Thanks for the heads-up about the post. And thanks for clearly detailing your position on the matter. If I may, I’d like to explain my opinion on the topic.

Is it wrong to “criticize Islam?” In a civilized society that values free speech, clearly the answer is no. But free speech is a two-way street. If it is acceptable to criticize Islam, then clearly it is just as acceptable that such criticism be open to criticism in return. In short, just because a person thinks their opinion on a particular matter is correct doesn’t make it so. And if a person can’t handle someone disagreeing with their opinion… well we all know the adage about people who live in glass houses.

My major objection to people like Sam Harris is not that I believe religion or in particular Islam is some off-limit topic of criticism. No. My major objection to Sam Harris is that rather than criticize Islam he instead tries to inspire fear of it—and, by association, Muslims as well (i.e. No one lies awake at night worrying about the Amish—but those Muslims on the other hand…). Many of his arguments seem to be based on fear, misunderstanding, exaggeration, oversimplification, and in of some cases apparent intentional misrepresentation of not only Islam but other religions such as Jainism as well. They often lack any sort of evidence (i.e. Islam is the religion causing the greatest amount of suffering in the world) yet we are expected to swallow their truth without doubt. And when someone raises these criticisms of his supposed criticism? Rather than actually defend his claims and provide solid evidence in support of them he instead insinuates we’re just too “liberal”—too culturally relativistic— to see the danger that he sees.

Sam Harris is free to criticize Islam. In fact, I’m eagerly looking forward to the day when he actually starts doing so (in the dictionary sense of the term). In the meantime, I dismiss his arguments as both unsupported and intended to intentionally stir up both fear and prejudice against Islam and its followers.

Next, I’d like to address the issue of Islamophobia—prejudice against, hatred, or fear of Islam and Muslims. Islamophobia doesn’t exist? I think the 200,000 Muslims killed and 50,000 Muslim women raped during the Bosnian Genocide would disagree with that statement. So would Iranian-American Zohreh Assemik, who was sliced with a boxcutter, kicked, had her hand smashed with a hammer, and had anti-Muslim slurs written on the mirrors of her nail and facial salon. So would pretty much anyone who played Muslim Massacre: The Game of Modern Religious Genocide in which you get to kill not only terrorists but Muslim civilians as well.

Frankly, @hpqp, I’m surprised. All of our conversations on the Sift have been reasonable, if a bit passionate at times. I think you would be just as shocked if I were to suddenly proclaim there is no such thing as Antisemitism as I was to read your statement in this thread. Islamophobia (as defined above) is quite real. No, claims of Islamophobia should not be used to shut down criticism of Islam (any more than claims of Antisemitism should be used to squelch criticism of Israeli policies). But that’s a far cry from claiming Islamophobia doesn’t exist, isn’t it?

You seem like a reasonable guy. I know you’ve tried your best to explain it to me but I still don’t understand why you believe so strongly that Islam itself—and not particular interpretations of Islam—are such a threat. So let's do something different. I’ve asked you this before, but you didn’t reply, so I’ll ask you again—what do you/Harris hope to achieve with all of this vitriol? What’s the goal? What do you hope to see happen? What’s the endgame? I ask these questions because I think the answers will really help me see where you are coming from and to understand your point of view.

The idea is not stupid, it is merely impractical, given today's technology. At worst, I would consider the girl to be underinformed, which is a far cry from stupid.

Shame on people who label others as 'stupid' because they refuse to consider a proposal due to its impracticality. Every great technological breakthrough was once considered impractical.

The video was sifted here with the title that it had at youtube. This isn't some case of media bias.

>>> The youtube goofus who originally posted this is a crackpot with the usual chemtrails/truther crap on his/er youtube page. I fully support his/er right to free speech, but it's obvious s/he has an axe to grind with police and other authority figures. If anyone is at fault for the original dumb title it's him (or her) and now has a slightly improved title on the sift.

Having parts of her teeth knocked out qualifies as "teeth knocked out" as far as I'm concerned. How can this small bit of minutiae mean anything to you? They fractured her friggin skull. For what? She was a non threat. There is simply no excuse for it.

>>> The fact remains: she was acting the fool. As I wrote once before (and now have to again, apparently) the use of force was excessive. The officer in question is no longer an officer and is being brought up on charges. What more do you want?

>>> What's the real beef here? Are you simply upset that I don't share your EXACT level of outrage?









>> ^burdturgler:

>> ^quantumushroom:
How did this happen? Drunk a-hole suspect, prevented from easily wiping out entire carloads of people on the highway, resists arrest and swears at cop.
Did she "deserve" what she got? No, the force was excessive. But by acting the fool she accelerated the potential for serious injury, in this case her own.
If she had been compliant from the start and still been thrown around she'd have a much better case.
Attn media: hyping non-existent injuries is no better than crying wolf.

>> ^Pantalones:
The cop broke her face, split her chin open, and chipped her teeth and she's now coping with being the victim of a violent crime, but thank goodness her teeth were not knocked out? Because that would have been a whole new level? Weak. Take that s to the beach, and get a tan.>> ^quantumushroom:
Still no fun, but still a far cry from "teeth knocked out". Title was changed. Good.

>> ^Pantalones:
AAAAAAAND TEETH!
"Fox said in addition to a facial fracture, a split chin and chipped teeth she's also trying to recover emotionally."




The video was sifted here with the title that it had at youtube. This isn't some case of media bias. Having parts of her teeth knocked out qualifies as "teeth knocked out" as far as I'm concerned. How can this small bit of minutiae mean anything to you? They fractured her friggin skull. For what? She was a non threat. There is simply no excuse for it. She had an accident and she called 911 for help. Instead, the heroic men in uniform drive her skull into a concrete divider face first. This whole "crying wolf" thing is disgusting and stupid QM. This woman was a victim of assault. The police department was in the process of firing this asshole for the assault which is why he resigned. However, that didn't save him from being charged and convicted for the crime of assault.

Yer forgetting a few things oh, programmed and wearing blinders-

The system is geared towards profiling the weak and uneducated
The system produces those who would abuse it (i.e. breeds thugs which later become cops
America has a history of one of the worst examples of human bondage-Most conquering armies treated their slaves better after an initial onslaught

Racism however, probably played a small part in this fiasco-Some thug got impatient, forgot his job, showed his ass, and fucking slammed a female against the wall-Case closed, the guy was a cop, and is still a complete douche.

>> ^quantumushroom:

How did this happen? Drunk a-hole suspect, prevented from easily wiping out entire carloads of people on the highway, resists arrest and swears at cop.
Did she "deserve" what she got? No, the force was excessive. But by acting the fool she accelerated the potential for serious injury, in this case her own.
If she had been compliant from the start and still been thrown around she'd have a much better case.
Attn media: hyping non-existent injuries is no better than crying wolf.

>> ^Pantalones:
The cop broke her face, split her chin open, and chipped her teeth and she's now coping with being the victim of a violent crime, but thank goodness her teeth were not knocked out? Because that would have been a whole new level? Weak. Take that s to the beach, and get a tan.>> ^quantumushroom:
Still no fun, but still a far cry from "teeth knocked out". Title was changed. Good.

>> ^Pantalones:
AAAAAAAND TEETH!
"Fox said in addition to a facial fracture, a split chin and chipped teeth she's also trying to recover emotionally."

>> ^quantumushroom:

How did this happen? Drunk a-hole suspect, prevented from easily wiping out entire carloads of people on the highway, resists arrest and swears at cop.
Did she "deserve" what she got? No, the force was excessive. But by acting the fool she accelerated the potential for serious injury, in this case her own.
If she had been compliant from the start and still been thrown around she'd have a much better case.
Attn media: hyping non-existent injuries is no better than crying wolf.

>> ^Pantalones:
The cop broke her face, split her chin open, and chipped her teeth and she's now coping with being the victim of a violent crime, but thank goodness her teeth were not knocked out? Because that would have been a whole new level? Weak. Take that s to the beach, and get a tan.>> ^quantumushroom:
Still no fun, but still a far cry from "teeth knocked out". Title was changed. Good.

>> ^Pantalones:
AAAAAAAND TEETH!
"Fox said in addition to a facial fracture, a split chin and chipped teeth she's also trying to recover emotionally."





The video was sifted here with the title that it had at youtube. This isn't some case of media bias. Having parts of her teeth knocked out qualifies as "teeth knocked out" as far as I'm concerned. How can this small bit of minutiae mean anything to you? They fractured her friggin skull. For what? She was a non threat. There is simply no excuse for it. She had an accident and she called 911 for help. Instead, the heroic men in uniform drive her skull into a concrete divider face first. This whole "crying wolf" thing is disgusting and stupid QM. This woman was a victim of assault. The police department was in the process of firing this asshole for the assault which is why he resigned. However, that didn't save him from being charged and convicted for the crime of assault.

How did this happen? Drunk a-hole suspect, prevented from easily wiping out entire carloads of people on the highway, resists arrest and swears at cop.

Did she "deserve" what she got? No, the force was excessive. But by acting the fool she accelerated the potential for serious injury, in this case her own.

If she had been compliant from the start and still been thrown around she'd have a much better case.

Attn media: hyping non-existent injuries is no better than crying wolf.


>> ^Pantalones:

The cop broke her face, split her chin open, and chipped her teeth and she's now coping with being the victim of a violent crime, but thank goodness her teeth were not knocked out? Because that would have been a whole new level? Weak. Take that s to the beach, and get a tan.>> ^quantumushroom:
Still no fun, but still a far cry from "teeth knocked out". Title was changed. Good.

>> ^Pantalones:
AAAAAAAND TEETH!
"Fox said in addition to a facial fracture, a split chin and chipped teeth she's also trying to recover emotionally."