I think it depends on the person. Some will see the 'admonishment' as a challenge offered by those with no power (remember Chingalera?) and take it as an invitation to become insanely abusive and outrageously vulgar. Others might see it as helpful to understand how their own actions are perceived by others and change the offending behavior.
It would be nice if Trance could admit why he did what he does (to himself at least), but it's far more important that he stop, understanding or not. IF he can't get the message from the community, the rules should be applied. He's had that clear message now, so the next time there should be no warning, just 2 week ban. If there's a next time after that, it's intentional or unconscious, either way that would indicate he won't stop, and at that point removal is the only option. I hope it doesn't come to that.
I don't like that many 'dissenting voices' have either left or been banned, but it's NEVER because of their viewpoint, it's because of their inappropriate actions (perhaps born from the frustration of being a lone dissenter on many topics? but that's a reason, not an excuse).
As for Dag/Lucky, I would hope their intervention is saved as a last resort, but having a Sift-Dad in charge to settle problems we can't settle amongst ourselves is a GOOD thing...if used in moderation.

Yeah, it made me unhappy to think this guy is already walking free, but that woman will live with what he did to her for life. Not cool.
It seems that the club bears some responsibility here. First, they apparently over served her badly. Secondly, they allowed an unconscious person to simply be dragged out of their club with no question as to what was wrong or who was dragging her. They should have intervened and called an amberlamps, not let a near dead woman be dragged off by a stranger. I hope she owns the club now....and that her rapist is back in Peru after 3.5 years of being Bubba's girlfriend.

Completely unrealistic. Barely any sleeping apart from being knocked unconscious..

I haven't followed this too closely, but I at least partially disagree with Stewart here:

1) The original video from outside the elevator didn't really provide conclusive proof about what happened. Her being knocked unconscious as a result of physical violence was the most likely explanation for what we saw there, but I think there was room for reasonable doubt at the time. She could have been passed out drunk or otherwise intoxicated, or knocked out by somebody else.

That original video was certainly enough to have police look into the event further. I assume that happened, but I don't know the results. I can only assume that no charges were pressed. Beyond that, I didn't / don't think it was necessary for the NFL to get involved at all. Especially since the first video didn't really prove that he did anything wrong.


2) If the NFL wanted to get involved, sure they could try to get their hands on more evidence (like the 2nd video). But, it isn't really their business -- let the police worry about that. And taking any actions against a player that is a suspect of any crime would be risky too... For example, a policy of suspending a player that has an active investigation against them before it has been concluded could easily be abused.


3) Maybe the NFL saw the 2nd video a long time ago, and maybe they didn't. Their actions now definitely seem like spin / damage control, but I don't think it is particularly fair to get all ticked off at the NFL even if you assume that they are lying and that they had seen the 2nd video a long time ago.

If the police and prosecutors want to send Rice to jail for his actions, by all means do so -- it would be well deserved. But criminal justice isn't in the purview of the NFL. Let the police take care of it, and if they fail to punish him adequately it is their fault, not the NFL's.

Now that the NFL has (and is forced to acknowledge) the definitive evidence about what happened from the 2nd video, it is fine (and GOOD) that they suspended him. But, I'm not too upset at them for taking their time to decide to do that. The slaps on the wrist from the criminal justice system are a much bigger concern, at least from my point of view.

But, I haven't been following this story too closely, so maybe I missed some stuff that would sway my opinion.

Every Asian knows white people carry diseases. You must outrun the air to avoid the diseases the unconscious body releases.

that gives them the right to beat up on a guy who is already either unconscious or severely injured and no longer a threat?

The police are supposed to be above petty revenge

They are supposed to be the good guys, not judge jury and executioner. I dunno about you, but I don't want to live in a society with a bunch of Judge Dredd wannabes.

It's not relevant what he did.

He was unconscious. Police should be held to a higher standard. Terminated from employment is not enough. Every officer involved should have spent at least a few years in jail, just like any ordinary person would for beating an unconscious person that way.

Another example of why I'm not fit for a jury...when asked if I have any prejudice I answer honestly that I can't believe any police testimony because they are taught it's OK to lie in order to get evidence or compliance, and they obviously don't limit themselves to lying only in those instances. They are so prepared to lie they do things like beat up unconscious people while yelling 'stop resisting', believing they are only being recorded on audio, already preparing the lie they'll tell in court from the first contact with the 'suspect'.
On another note, the secondary title "POLICE ABUSE BEAT A ACCIDENT VICTIM" is pretty misleading, this was hardly an 'accident victim', he was a 'purposeful crash victim', and rightly so.

I doubt it was intentional either but that's not really the point. The things we unconsciously say can often be just as important as the things we consciously, intentionally say. When we're talking about whether or not specific groups of people are acceptable to a broader culture, so much of how people interpret such a discussion is through the lens of their own inculturation and unconscious assumptions.

Take a look at the black community's response to the Ferguson situation on social media. One of the memes that cropped up was a comparison of headlines between stories where a white person commits murder versus when a black person is a murder victim. In the former, the headlines express a sense of disbelief such as "Theatre shooting perpetrator was 'brilliant scientist', says graduate advisor". In the latter case, the headlines tend to imply the victim got what was coming to him or her, i.e. "Shooting victim had history of drug addiction, multiple arrests." Does that mean the news media hates black people and is hopelessly racist? No, of course not. I bet none of the editors who ran those headlines thought for a moment that they were imposing racial biases upon their stories. But, the biases are definitely there -- it's a shock that a white person would kill, but it's expected and probably just that a black person was killed -- and that shapes how other people perceive the affected groups without it even entering their conscious consideration.

In the case of this video, I doubt the comedians in question considered what I've brought up, but again the note on which it ends is definitely one of "if gay people just acted normal then they wouldn't have any problems in society." I find that problematic, whether it was intentional or not.

You know why he got flagged as an enemy of the State, right? The reason being is that the 'state' in the United States of Unconsciousness has effectively cornered the market on cradle-to-grave programming of yet another generation's children.

Obedience
Conformity
Control
Marketing
Career Assignment
Instruction (how to be a dutiful wage-slave)

Check a local public school library and required textbooks in the U.S. for the latest version of history re-written, remedial English, science, maths texts-The majority of texts in school libraries???.....Fucking picture-books. Pathetic, and glaringly obvious the agenda and purpose.

The police state wants children as smart/ignorant as the cunts running the show need them to be....to be conveniently mind-fucked on-demand.

Is it working?? One has but to check the world-view of the 'millennials' to gauge the effectiveness of the mindfuck.

Are they powered by the jet skis following them, or are those just for safety when the boarder crashes and goes unconscious in the water?
Pretty neat, but I want to see them not attached to another boat (which the link said they are) but instead towing their own tiny float with the motor inside it.

You have completely misunderstood the point and have mistaken the method for interpreting data with the data itself. Yes, of course context matters, but none of your examples presents an exception to rationalism (PDF) in any way. Using reason does not pre-determine the conclusion prior to the interpretation of the data. Just the opposite, rational deductive reasoning enables one to interpret the data from an unbiased position, in contrast to the hermeneutics which you seem to be employing. Without a consistent position based on unchanging principles, the data is either consciously or unconsciously filtered through your a prior "preference" or bias in arbitrary and/or indefensible (rationally-speaking) ways.

And IP is no exception (PDF).

...if it wasn't for the "lazy blind,...eye," as chingalera so choggielike calls it, he wouldn't be here, AGAIN AGAIN, to dribble and spew his verbosely inarticulate, self deluded, thread hijacking diatribes.

Is it not glaring, amazing, and ironic that so much of the vitriol choggie levies is unconsciously self-referential? Defining symptom of Multiple Profile Disorder.

By the end of the video, my head was pointed upwards because I was unconsciously willing the camera to look up - the horizon is tantalizingly out of the frame for most of the vid, so annoying! What a ride though.