From Wikipedia's Man catcher page's section on China:

"A type of locking man catcher is available for staff at train stations and airports in China to capture and restrain individuals in a non-lethal manner.

"In some junior and middle schools, security guards are equipped with non-locking variants designed to seize a person's waist or prevent them from advancing. It is essentially a two-pronged fork, a U-shape projecting from a pole."

What manner of sorcery IS this?!

https://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2016/aug/08/tim-kaine/tim-kaine-falsely-says-trump-said-all-mexicans-are/


No.
As a matter of fact I do refuse to hear the term accosted used and not have my spidey senses triggered when they were dealing with a potential threat to the potus.
I did indeed look it up to refresh my memory on its meaning at the time I read it to try to see why they would choose to phrase it in this manner.

You are so used to this new twisting of facts that is doesn't even phase you anymore.
Telling me I'm part of a smear campaign is trying to censor me and a perfect example of how the left now operates.
You should be proud.
You have swallowed the propaganda completely.
I have already said Fox is for the most part fluff but that they have some good reporting from time to time.
If that is so offensive to you than the problem lies with the lies you have been fed.
I was speechless when those 2 idiots appeared on stage with Trump and laughed at their stupidity.
Too bad you can't see the stupidity on the left.

I'd never heard of The Daily Caller (company that produced the video) before seeing this post so I did some research. Here's a link to their Wikipedia entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Daily_Caller

This video does bring up some headscratchers (albeit not nearly enough to discredit her, IMO), but they couldn't even do it in a factual manner. Instead, they start throwing names and mudballs at the end, and if you think the credibility hit list against Ford is long, checkout the Wikipedia section on controversial and misleading publications from TDC. It seems the company that claims it wants to "Unfake the news" is itself fake news.

Huh, and here I thought Rick's speech mannerisms were deliberately chosen to sound drunk. Turns out, that's just how a Justin Roiland do.

I find it interesting that you capitalize that word. I might say I tend to hold liberal policy positions, but I wouldn't use Liberal in the manner you used Conservative. Little "c" conservative isn't a party, it's supposed to describe a general approach to policy, and historically was associated with Republicans and specific policy positions. They were for states' rights, balanced budget / reducing debt, personal property rights, fair trade, etc. The current Republican party has abandoned all of this, but its members still refer to themselves as "conservatives" somehow. Maybe that capitalization is what I had been missing - they're Conservatives now, not conservatives. They can define that proper noun form of the word in whatever way they want.

@newtboy
"Discrimination by itself is not bad, it's discriminating against someone (especially based on racial assumptions) that's considered wrong."

And there we can agree. I would count assumptions of white privilege as racial assumptions that are wrong to be used as a basis for discriminating against people. I get that you disagree vehemently.

I also agree that equality and diversity and race aren't simplistic problems, and that on some level everybody has some manner of assumptions or prejudices that affect their decisions.

What I can't accept or agree with is the notion that coding into law that entities should use race to discriminate for/against people makes things better.

Again, even ceding all of your points to you(only for arguments sake) coding law to discriminate against people based upon race is still bad.

No matter how hard and long you try to explain the greater good it serves, and no matter how right you are, humans will not tolerate that discrimination. When their friends, family and especially kids are impacted or are simply potentially going to be impacted negatively by it, they will push back. When the group you are discriminating against is a majority, the push back will be all the more certain and vehement when it comes.

Mark my words, if the Democrats want to die on this hill and give not an inch on it, they will continue to lose election after election until they distance themselves from it.

I wholeheartedly disagree. Those professions you mentioned require extensive knowledge of multiple disciplines and an ability to interact with other professionals, not a singular ability to preform one singular act. The criteria are varied and there is no one way to determine future performance based on any single test of abilities. Edit : Temperment, perceived social standing, manners, vocabulary, intelligence, education across the board, etc all matter in those professions, but not in basketball.

Yep, agreed, just pointing out that sports are not immune.

Those people are deluded. We don't live in a vacuum. People consider race, if only subconsciously, pretending we don't is just dishonest, and more often than not just an excuse to discriminate against others, if only by ignoring the extra obstacles they overcome to be equal.

MY policy would examine a person's entire situation, financial, local, familial, social, educational, employment, extra curricular activities, etc. and take it all into account when determining what kind of hard working student to admit. If admissions tests included all those and more in their decision, not just a single biased test result, race could be excluded unless diversity is required. Because diversity is required, both morally and legally, it would be good to start there and examine the results, then maybe race/gender could still be ignored, maybe not. We don't do that, so we can't know, but we do know the tests we use like SAT tests are biased and don't measure achievement, only specific wrote knowledge, which is a piss poor measure of a student's potential.

I think I understand your position, I do think it's important to not swing the pendulum of injustice harder in the other direction and instead work to stop it in the middle, I just disagree with your theories, your methodology, and I think you ignore many major factors and the desired/required result in order to stand immovable in your position.

I'm unsure as to what Noir is arguing against.

He makes valid points about people in poorer neighbourhoods being able to defend themselves. I mean, to me, that's a damning indictment of the failure of civil society in the US, but let's ignore that for the moment.

Almost no one is suggesting banning guns, and there are very few countries with an outright ban on firearms. But there are plenty of places with simple, sensible gun laws that have been proven to work... none of which would have any of the negative impacts Noir is talking about.

It's like arguing against speed limits by claiming people need to drive to work.

Also, the "prevent a tyrannical government" argument? Jesus, that was obsolete 100 years ago. 50 years ago, it was laughable and to suggest that any kind of armed citizen uprising could make any kind of dent in any modern military, much less the worlds biggest, is bordering on insanity.

An AR-15 isn't going to do jack shit against a tank, and you're not even going to see a predator drone coming.

But upvote and kudos to him for discussing this is in a rational manner.

Deplorable in manners. Laughable at their mentality of prioritizing highest-value food items for consumption regardless of taste & variety. Still smarter than those buffet eaters that pig out on carbs.

Hope they don't sick from all the cholesterol from the shrimps.

No, BLM did that with the Minneapolis / St Paul Pride parade in Minnesota last year as well. I've had to stop and have some real thinks about some of the tactics employed by BLM over the last few years, as frequently my gut reaction has been "well that seems excessively antagonistic towards people who likely already support them." Things like blocking a pride parade, or shutting down sections of highways and such. Ultimately, these actions aren't aimed at the people who are immediately affected by them, they're done to generate publicity for the group when they might otherwise have difficulty getting any sort of media attention paid to their message from more typical, "polite" protests.

Civil rights organizers have had over 60 years of experience in determining how to effectively protest, or longer if you look at examples like women's suffrage. At this point I think they have a pretty good idea of what forms of protest are useful vs counter-productive. I support what BLM is trying to accomplish, and as someone who to date has not personally helped that cause in any direct manner, I'm opting to trust that they have an idea what they're doing and that if I'm reacting negatively to their approach I should probably question / sit with that reaction before saying something foolish.

In Canada at least BLM really has given itself a bad reputation. They halted the Toronto Pride Parade until their demands were met, those demands including excluding police officers from participating in the parade...
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/pride-parade-toronto-1.3662823

I hope the Canadian, and specifically Toronto, chapter of BLM is disparate from the American one, because this incident wasn't isolated. BLM Toronto has taken repeated actions like this one that give exactly the black lives matter MORE vibe that the All Lives Matters crowd accuses the group of.

When your wife asks do you love me, she DOES mean do you love me MORE than others, BLM Toronto at least certainly has acted in that manner enough to lose my support for now.

On the chance your 'jokingly' isn't obvious, MLK, Ghandi and Mandela's causes ALL had support from those willing to use violence, aka better weapons would help.

Malcolm X would be the next most prominent figure beside MLK. Indian independence wasn't won with peaceful hunger strikes alone, and again lots of violence in South Africa.

Ghandi even bridged the gap to working alongside the effective army fighting for India's independence:
" I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honor than that she should in a cowardly manner become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonor.
But I believe that nonviolence is infinitely superior to violence, forgiveness is more manly than punishment, forgiveness adorns a soldier."

Speaking more to the point of America today, pretty much no civil war has been fought exclusively with civilians on one side, and the government, police, army and all other branches of the state united on the other. The reason being that if that kind of unity within the government against the civilian population exists, you ALREADY have tyranny.

In America, the example would be if a president or a particular political party decided to try for tyrannical over reach, would the American public be better equipped to resist that with or without guns? In civil war, guns give power to the majority of public opinion that would need to be there otherwise. In a nation with an unarmed public, whatever the majority of soldiers side with is likely gonna win. With an armed populace, the civilian opinion matters more.

I think it's an overall modest observation, and one that really doesn't in anyway make it obvious that the modest benefit is worth the costs. That is another matter, but you can't factually claim that there isn't a meaningful difference between an armed and unarmed population when facing civil war.

Will be a while before they get rid of uncanny valley issues. They haven't got the movements right yet, let alone mannerisms.