*doublepromote

So so awesome seeing them all together again at Bayside (and in their 90s wardrobe!).



Screech would've been there but he's in jail for stabbing a guy on Christmas.

And that's the issue right there. I think you and I are arguing about completely different things. In terms of the person who stole the photos and posted them, yes there is no middle ground--that person 100% committed a crime and needs to be punished.

However, in terms of responsibility of people for putting themselves in the position to be victimized, there is a huge range of possibilities--but often this range of possibilities isn't examined for fear of someone shouting "Blaming the victim!" The link I posted above goes to great lengths to point out that the criminal who commits the crime is 100% responsible for the criminal act (by virtue of having made the choice to commit it) but that the victim can in fact also have contributed to the crime in a continuum of ways starting with not at all (100% innocent, as in a child who is abused) to fully responsible (as in the case of a rapist who is killed by a potential victim in self-defense during the rape attempt--in this case the rapist becomes the "victim" of a shooting that he brought completely upon himself). There is lots of middle ground between these extremes.

Let's examine a simple case:

I am walking down the street in LA during the early evening in a neighborhood that normally has very little crime. A homeless man shambling past me suddenly pulls a knife, rams it into my chest, and steals my wallet which happened to contain several hundred dollars. I think we can agree in this situation I've no responsibility for this incident occurring. I could not have predicted it would happen and there is little I could have done to anticipate or prevent it. I am 100% an innocent victim in this scenario.

Now let's change the situation. I go down to Skid Row in the early evening and start showing all the homeless people there wads of $100 bills and telling them how worthless they are and how if they only got off their asses and worked hard like me they could have money too. Again, I get shanked in the chest and my money is stolen. Am I 100% an innocent victim in this case? It seems a bit absurd to say yes, doesn't it? My actions (choosing to go to an area that is not often policed, at night, alone, and flash money while belligerently accosting random people who don't have a lot left to lose) are directly linked to the stabbing.

Note that in both cases the person committing the crime is still 100% responsible for their own actions--they chose to stab me and steal my money. But in one case I clearly could not have foreseen or prevented the attack coming whereas in the other it was reasonably foreseeable that my actions were going to lead to problems (not necessarily a stabbing but at the very least some sort of altercation, unless the most patient and forgiving homeless people on Earth happened to be gathered on Skid Row that day). Does that mean the stabber in the second case should get a lighter sentence? No. But it does mean I have some responsibility for what went down and can be justly criticized for my actions. I can't hide behind the "don't blame the victim" catchphrase. I still deserve justice, though, despite being an offensive idiot.

Back to the case at hand.

You are correct, the woman did nothing "wrong" in the moral or legal sense, and the person who violated her privacy is 100% responsible for making the photos public. But I dislike the idea that because she's a victim of a crime, her actions can't be criticized. She might not have done anything "wrong" but she did indeed make a huge error of judgement when she decided to snap naked pics of herself and post them to a social network which is known for dodgy privacy practices. Given the state of technology today, one should be able to infer that there is a pretty high risk that racy photos are going to get leaked at some point, particularly if posted online. If you are okay with that risk, go ahead and post them. And if they are leaked, by all means prosecute the offenders. But don't expect people not to criticize you for gambling that nothing is going to happen, especially when there is plenty of evidence to believe the contrary.

@Grimm
@ChaosEngine
@Sagemind

thanks guys!
thats exactly what i was looking for.
though i have to admit a particular curiosity in regards to what a "decent" or "living" wage would amount to,which is too specific for most people to actually state.

the reason i am so curious is because since 1978 i have been in the business in one capacity or another.i have been a captain at a few 5 star places.ran two 4 star ballrooms and have bartended at some of the most amazing clubs.

i worked very hard to learn the techniques and particulars of my trade.i learned from the best so i could be the best.started from the bottom,listened intently and learned the trade from some of the most talented people i had ever met.

so what am i worth? what would be considered a "living" wage?
the reason i say this,tongue firmly planted in cheek,is because when people find out how much i made they..and i am not exagerating here..literally lose their mind.

i did very well,but i worked my ass off to get it.
and i was worth every penny.
but i didnt just do it for the money...thats just...soulless and void of any meaning.i did it for the challenge.i did it for pride and knowing that the majority of people out there could not do what i do.
and i happen to enjoy meeting people:bonus!
love what you do and the money follows.

or did.

i recently left the business out of disgust.
maybe i am just getting too old and cranky but corporate eateries have douched the profession i adored for decades.

a corporate trained waiter/waitress is just one notch above useless.
i know i know..thats my experience and does not reflect on ALL servers but fuck that,i am old and i am free to bitch about the younger generation.

no pride.
no discipline.
just whining crying and more whining.
and god forbid you offer advice to these know-it-all wankers...
"well,when i was at olive garden"..oh fuck me....
only been in the biz for 30 plus years..yeah..what would i know..
just let grandpa hump the ten tops because you got double sat and are now in the "weeds".
fucking pussies...

gah..sorry for the ranting,but watching my profession go down the shitter is upsetting.

tipping is not mandatory in the states.
though if you are experiencing the "new wave" of servers,who i have seen openly give stink eye to customers,i can see why you may think otherwise.

i always looked at my profession as a sub-contractor.
my relationship is with my customer.THEY are my business and i treat them accordingly.you should not do this job strictly for the money.might as well go sell your soul and become a crack dealer...same difference.

ok..now i am just rambling.
suffice to say:
tipping is not mandatory.
new generation of servers are a gaggle of whiny non-conrtibuting pussies who think they know everything because they worked day shift at olive garden for a year.

and if ever offered minimum wage to do what i did,i would stab the person in the eye socket with a dirty ball point pen.

/end rant

folks i will be here every tuesday! dont forget to tip your bartenders and wai...oh....nevermind.

Not funny. I'd be pissed enough if this happened to me...but I'm just imagining some dick hopping in my wife's car? Yes...stabbed or shot. Giggle as you bleed, cock sucker.

Sad.
You are supposed to be the protectors of the public, but you seem to think it's proper to live in fear of and disgust with them.
I was taught, and it has held true, that the best way to win a fight is not to be in one. I have won many a 'fight' in my youth by being LESS violent than the person assaulting me, sometimes with words diffusing the situation, sometimes by simply avoiding their clumsy attacks and allowing them to hurt themselves. Escalating the violence is almost never the best option, just the simplest and most reactionary.
Those times I 'lost' a fight (only happened with my brother who was twice my size, unavoidable, and I couldn't talk down), I could have become more violent to 'win' and saved myself from discomfort and injury by stabbing him...that would have been inappropriate. To me, from your comments you would have knifed him, because winning is more important than anything else. That theory sucks ass, and I think you know it.
OK, if "all too many cops" is hyperbole, I'll say "nearly every cop on the force"...better? Both are true, both are terrible. Show me just 3 instances of cops going against other cops publicly and in court, and remaining cops. You can't. That's "All too many" to almost everyone that's not in uniform.

Only way to make Quicktime Events lamer is to apply their EPIC BUTTON MASH principles to thoroughly NON-EPIC things...

I really enjoyed Shadows of Mordor, but it took a big hit by having the *midpoint* boss be "EPIC ACTUAL BATTLE", and then the two *final* bosses being "EPIC SNEAK UP AND STAB DUDE IN BACK 3 TIMES" followed by "WE RAN OUT OF IDEAS, SO RANDOMLY PRESS A FEW BUTTONS IN THIS QUICKTIME EVENT". /sigh

I played a shooting game today.
I killed a lot of guys.
I shot some, stabbed some, blew some up.
The minions dropped like flies.

Until the big boss showed himself,
The briefcase on his arm.
It took some time but he succumbed
To great amounts of harm.

My guess would be that it has to do with the acceleration of the feather due to the gravitational force. That however is a stab in the dark. Anyone?

*quality video.

If anyone would like to read more on this subject, I recommend Steven Pinkers The Better Angels of Our Nature, which also covers deaths by crime, disease, malnutrition, etc. It's one of the most information dense books I've ever read, filled with all kinds of historical anecdotes* and grisly statistics about violent deaths per capita throughout history, but it basically boils down to this:

we live in the healthiest, happiest, most peaceful time in history.

The reason it seems so bad is that we simply have more access to information about conflicts, murders, etc than we did in the past.

It's important to note that while Vulture Capitalism isn't as bad as colonialism, it's still Pretty Fucking Bad.

* fascinating fact: the reason dinner knives are generally blunt (apart from steak knives) is because it's stopped people getting into an argument over dinner and stabbing each other. It was previously commonplace for everyone to carry their own knife to dinner and eat with it.

@newt boy: Out of curiosity, what jobs (outside of the military) are more dangerous than being a cop? There are certainly hazardous jobs out there, like repairing electric lines, but those are mostly predictable. With sufficient preparation and training, risks can be calculated and minimized. Being a cop, on the other hand, forces you to deal with completely unpredictable situations. A routine traffic stop can be a harmless affair or it can end with you being shot or stabbed to death. Cops bear the burden of risk when dealing with the public. Civilians can generally assume that cops aren't going to try to kill them. Cops can't make that same assumption. Their position of authority and responsibility to enforce the law puts them in an inherently antagonistic position. People don't like being told what to do and they definitely don't like being punished for not doing it. It's no surprise then that cops tend to be wary and defensive when doing their job. Some cops (the minority) simply take this too far and try to neutralize perceived threats before they become actual threats.

The ideal solution is to have all cops wear cameras while on duty. That way, there's objective footage of all their interactions, violent or otherwise. If Darren Wilson had been wearing a camera, the whole Brown debacle could have been avoided or at least minimized.

I have two girls and I have taught them that they deserve equality with men in all things. I have told them that, short of self defence, they should never take advantage of their femininity by resorting to violence against anyone because the "victim" of their violence would be justified in retaliating. Going by what this vid shows it appears the woman, not once, but twice, assaulted the man. Maybe he could have restrained her, but it appears he just lashed out in self-defence. Your comment implies woman have the right to do this with impunity and without consequence. You are wrong. Equality means just that, it does NOT mean that in selected circumstances some are more equal than others. All violence is, when perpetrated without just cause, wrong. But your comment that; "It doesn't matter if she's slapping you, punching you, charging you, strangling you, stabbing you or shooting at you," is ridiculous. If a woman - or anybody for that matter - attempts any of the above, then self defence is totally justified. To deny this is to give woman the right to resort to violence in the belief that misguided opinion, such as yours, will be on their side.

Chaucer, don't be a misogynist. There's NEVER any justification for hitting a woman. It doesn't matter if she's slapping you, punching you, charging you, strangling you, stabbing you or shooting at you. There's no such thing as self-defense when the victim is a man and the attacker is a woman. Clearly women pose no threat to men so there's no need to respond to their physical attacks. Take it like a man and then beg for forgiveness when she's finished with you.

PS: Art cannot discriminate or objectify anyone. People do that. Someone runs over someone with a car, is it the cars fault? Someone gets stabbed, do you ban knives? Someone publishes a sexual fantasy, should we ban all books? Feminists embrace marxism for this reason.

I grew up watching all manner of pornography. Larry Flint is one of my personal heroes. Yet I never once tried to use a woman like some kind of fleshlight. Although I noticed boys all around me without access to pornography poaching school-girls with lies and deceit and then breaking their hearts by never calling them back, or worse, leaving them with child and no support. THAT is what objectifying someone is, if you think TV and comic books is what causes these monkey-men to behave this way, that a little bit of censorship is going to transform them into empathetic intellectuals, I just want to let you know you're in for some disappointment.

The problem is you're talking out of both sides of your mouth.

On the one hand you're saying you know how dangerous a guy with a knife is. That being the case, you know that as close as he was to one of the officers, he could have murdered the officer if the officer attempted anything other than to completely stop him (by killing him).

And on the other hand you're saying the officer should consider the guy's mental well-being. Okay, and do what about it, try to talk him into seeking counseling?

There is no such thing as "containing the situation" when "the situation" is a guy standing a very close distance to you with a knife and approaching. There's no talking to him, no tasing him, no tossing a net over him... there's nothing that will guarantee he won't stab you except shooting him.

Still on a third hand you're staying it's part of an officer's job to risk his life to deal with the threat instead of neutralizing it, but that you feel officers shouldn't gamble with their lives. Those two concepts are completely contradictory.

It's quite a thing to realize he's dead within 20 seconds of the police arriving, but everything about that has zero bearing on his killing. When a guy is approaching an officer with a knife within seconds of their arrival, he's not going to call out to the guy and bystanders to ask them if the guy was showing aggression to anyone else because why in the fuck would that matter. He's directly showing aggressive intent towards the officers themselves for goodness' sake! Nothing that happened before that matters.

If as a cop your life is in imminent danger, the guy's mental state, what he did before you arrived, what alternatives to a gun *might* stop him or "contain" him... NONE of that matters because THERE IS A GUY COMING TOWARDS YOU WITH A KNIFE. That's all the cops were thinking and that's all they needed to be thinking when they decided they had to to shoot him to have as close to a 100% chance of survival as possible.

To summarize: Guy approaches you menacingly with a knife, you. must. shoot. him, if you want to attempt to guarantee you're not going to die.

BUT

we can agree to disagree.