I posted this without really thinking about it -- then proceeded to think about it during the long walk to the office this morning....

I wonder if this isn't Stockholm Syndrome? No fighting ever heard, only married two years, he is divorcing her, and then he says he "deserved it" after she profoundly punished him. If it is Stockholm then he is a very brave man to get the courage to try to divorce her in the first place.

I can think of other scenarios that fit the facts, including the "I deserved it" -- which include some pretty repressive and abusive attitudes of some churches towards sexuality.



>> ^Sagemind:

Garbage disposal?
"He deserved it?"
This makes me angry...

I can see how cops would get mad at the rule of law when they are the only ones following it (As they should.) I could see how a rapist getting off (Literally sometimes) because a reasonable cause was questioned could frustrate someone. I can see how citizens, and their yelling and screaming, "My kids innocent!" all the time would fluster. I can see how, "You need to bring justice and find someone guilty!" would also fluster.

And I can see how the innocent juvie who get's caught at the wrong place/wrong time could get flustered.

I think citizens and their unregulated sense that someone must die, someone must be brought to justice or the cops aren't doing their jobs is more to blame than anything else...

But at least you can admit your opinion is skewed (I doubt just a bit though.) Stockholm syndrome is so true...

>> ^criticalthud:
>> ^ToastyBuffoon:
>> ^criticalthud:
I fear the police much more than I count on them to do the right thing.

Paranoid much?
While there is no denying that some of our people in uniform abuse the power they are given, sometimes with extreme and unfortunately deadly results, these idiots are only a small portion of the law enforcement community. My personal experiences with police officers over my 44 years of life have been one of mutual respect. I find that if you engage an officer with a level of respect, most times you will get that in kind.
In the case of Emily, there is no doubt she was doing something well within her rights as a citizen and that the officer had no reason to feel threatened by her actions. Her arrest was a definite abuse of power, and the ticketing of the supporters was most certainly a form of intimidation/retaliation, but I'm not going to lose any sleep at night worried about my next encounter with the police. I have confidence that my local law enforcement will do what is right and appropriate in most situations.

totally! <IMG class=smiley src="http://cdn.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/smile.gif"> LOL i'm an ex lawyer. i used to represent incarcerated juvi's down in louisiana, so my perception is a bit skewed. yeah of course some good cops out there. i've known a few too. but seen some bad shit. and many cops i've been around have voiced the opinion that the rule of law (what there is of it) is essentially an impediment to them doing their "jobs". and often times cops have no issues whatsoever with framing someone they know of to be "bad" but don't have the evidence to nail. but yeah, there will forever be shades of grey in this area. I think if we focused on the fact that the laws are most often written by those who wish to preserve the status quo (the rich) and returned the rule of law to the people, so many of these issues would be mitigated. thanks for the call out <IMG class=smiley src="http://cdn.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/smile.gif">

Internalized racism is still racism.

It is essentially Stockholm Syndrome, @smooman.

All these people have Stockholm Syndrome, identifying with Bieber and Spears more than good music.

Clearly Stockholm-syndrome.

Well he's managed to ditch 1/3 of that useless weight he's carrying around now he just has to come to terms with the rest of it. "Believe or Burn" as I call it isn't a choice as the religious would tell you, it's a threat. It's a gun at your head saying "Do it or else. I'll be really sorry about it but I'll still do it." Calling that love is like having Stockholm syndrome.

>> ^gorillaman:

Here we are with our downvotes and promote powers, an elite of an elite, privileged members of the internet class, which is itself already practically superhuman, talking about our democratic website? LOL.

I'm noticing that you aren't really responding to my argument, but instead are trying to declare Videosift...what? An oligarchy? An Aristocracy? Totally devoid of any wisdom of crowds?

I've never really seen downvotes make a difference when it comes to getting on the Top 15. Hell, I can't even remember the last time I saw a video get more than 3 downvotes.

All promote and quality do is increase exposure. They can make a difference between a video "sifting" instead of going to pqueue, and it can pad the number of votes it gets after it hits the Top 15, but I doubt you could get, say, a video of silent blackness into the top 15 purely with quality and promote.

>> ^gorillaman:
The misconception I see in your posts is this arbitrary distinction between the oppressors and the oppressed. The average man on the street is as guilty today as the plutocrat with his snout in the trough, because if their positions were reversed they'd each behave in the same way.

It's not a misconception, it's that I disagree with your assertion. I doubt reversal would make no difference. In any case, my aim isn't to "reverse" their positions, but to equalize them.

>> ^gorillaman:
Accountability to 'the people' is hardly a check on corruption if the people themselves are corrupt.

The theory is, if people vote for politician A, and A does things that fuck them over, they can vote for another politician next time. To use the favorite conservative example, you can't raise taxes with impunity, because if people don't think it's justified, they'll vote you out. Get rid of the vote, and those eeevil government bureaucrats can raise taxes, and spend all of it on palaces for themselves instead of healthcare. The only "accountability" valve then comes in terms of an armed rebellion.

You're vaguely alluding to a tyranny of the majority issue, but in practice every tyranny I can think of has been a "tyranny of the elite".

>> ^gorillaman:
There's a linguistic issue here as well. Over time 'democracy' has become perversely synonymous with 'freedom'. There's an essential difference between taking power away and taking freedom away. Power here means the power to enforce ones will over others, freedom is the freedom from the power of others. Removing power from the majority will actually increase their freedom.

Again, it's not a linguistic issue, it's that you disagree with other people's feelings about democracy. Maybe that's justified, maybe it's not, but it's not that people don't understand what the words mean.

As for freedom vs. power, it's a slippery thing. I'd say they're synonymous in this context in a lot of ways.

Do I have the ability to own a house because I'm "free" to do so, or because I have the power that comes from having the talents to build a decent career for myself? Or am I "free" to have land like this because the government is ensuring that my property rights will be respected? Or am I somehow a slave to the majority because I pay taxes to a democratic government?

>> ^gorillaman:
Look at the progress of this thread. I don't see much ideological territory left to the democrats, squeezed as you are from both sides. While dft lectures blanarchist on the need for a government to protect free men from one another, you want to turn around and give those same men a stake in that same government with all its might and authority. Even on the site of your last stand - the desperate, impossible compromise of constitution, you admit to massive deception and malfeasance and even in the strongest and best designed democratic state an apparently irredeemable collapse. With all this you still believe democracy is moral? It amounts to a kind of political stockholm syndrome.


For all the proclamations of victory, I notice that the vast majority of that paragraph refers to things people other than me have said. I haven't used the word "constitution" until just now, for example.

I do think the US's implementation of democracy is headed for a collapse. Not because people left to their own devices slit their own throats (which you seem to think is inevitable), but instead because a wealthy elite has effectively subverted the mechanics of democracy.

So you say to me, as the elite stands over our wounded democracy, choking the last life out of it, that this is proof that the corruption and stupidity of the people has finally led to democracy's demise, and demand that we empower the elite to rule over us.

That's Stockholm syndrome.

Hell, you have yet to even try to explain what it is you're really suggesting, beyond that you want Superman and the Justice League to come and save us from ourselves. Not only that, you want them to totally ignore what we might say about their edicts, lest our filthy corruptness infect them.

@NetRunner

Here we are with our downvotes and promote powers, an elite of an elite, privileged members of the internet class, which is itself already practically superhuman, talking about our democratic website? LOL.

The misconception I see in your posts is this arbitrary distinction between the oppressors and the oppressed. The average man on the street is as guilty today as the plutocrat with his snout in the trough, because if their positions were reversed they'd each behave in the same way. Where everybody's only responsibility is to their own interest, which it is in a democratic 'believe whatever you want, vote however you want' anarcho-relativist system; the difference is one of chance only.

Accountability to 'the people' is hardly a check on corruption if the people themselves are corrupt. Our goal shouldn't be to defend unsuccessful criminals from their more effective rivals. The great value of government is that it tears power out of the hands of the people, so they can't do as much damage with it.

There's a linguistic issue here as well. Over time 'democracy' has become perversely synonymous with 'freedom'. There's an essential difference between taking power away and taking freedom away. Power here means the power to enforce ones will over others, freedom is the freedom from the power of others. Removing power from the majority will actually increase their freedom.

Look at the progress of this thread. I don't see much ideological territory left to the democrats, squeezed as you are from both sides. While dft lectures blanarchist on the need for a government to protect free men from one another, you want to turn around and give those same men a stake in that same government with all its might and authority. Even on the site of your last stand - the desperate, impossible compromise of constitution, you admit to massive deception and malfeasance and even in the strongest and best designed democratic state an apparently irredeemable collapse. With all this you still believe democracy is moral? It amounts to a kind of political stockholm syndrome.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

http://www.tressugar.com/Sex-Surprise-Swedish-Law-12475176
http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2010/12/06/some-though
ts-on-sex-by-surprise/
As to backup the claim made by lithic.
"UPDATE: As greater clarity is brought to these charges, it sounds like it was a lot more than “they agreed he would wear a condom and he didn’t.” According to the Press Association, “The court heard Assange is accused of using his body weight to hold her down in a sexual manner … The fourth charge accused Assange of having sex with a second woman, Miss W, on August 17 without a condom while she was asleep at her Stockholm home.” Emphasis mine. Kate Harding has more. "
Seems a lot less clear what is happening. It could be that he is a scum bag that deserve some form of punishment. The timing is so damned suspicious though.


Ahh... sleeping - the ultimate unspoken yes.
_{I kid, I kid}

http://www.tressugar.com/Sex-Surprise-Swedish-Law-12475176

http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2010/12/06/some-thoughts-on-sex-by-surprise/

As to backup the claim made by lithic.

"UPDATE: As greater clarity is brought to these charges, it sounds like it was a lot more than “they agreed he would wear a condom and he didn’t.” According to the Press Association, “The court heard Assange is accused of using his body weight to hold her down in a sexual manner … The fourth charge accused Assange of having sex with a second woman, Miss W, on August 17 without a condom while she was asleep at her Stockholm home.” Emphasis mine. Kate Harding has more. "

Seems a lot less clear what is happening. It could be that he is a scum bag that deserve some form of punishment. The timing is so damned suspicious though.

>> ^LarsaruS:

They are guarding the Royal Palace in Stockholm. They have live ammo and have limited police authority as well, as in they can arrest drunks and annoying tourists that break the law at the royal palace. Drunks taking a leak on the palace tends to be frowned upon...

Yea, been there done that, we once arrested a couple of drunk Norwegian journalists that pissed on a fountain on the other side of the castle (from where this was filmed), needless to say that hilarity ensued when we made them clean up the mess.

Actually the Royal Palace guards does have extended police authority as the get to do things like search cars without a warrant, it's just that no one besides the occasional drunk dares to commit a crime close to the castle (due to being surrounded by soldiers with assault rifles, the über skills to use them and slightly relaxed restrictions on shooting and stabbing people).

They are guarding the Royal Palace in Stockholm. They have live ammo and have limited police authority as well, as in they can arrest drunks and annoying tourists that break the law at the royal palace. Drunks taking a leak on the palace tends to be frowned upon...

You're >> ^bla
nkfist:

"much more easily than say, getting rid of 100% of the bad cops without some kind of telepathic superpowers or magically preventing 100% of the crimes that lead to victims sueing the police"
Exactly my point about breaking a few eggs to make your big government omelet. Statists may dislike the atrocities of government, but they see it as a necessary casualty. Every day we see cops doing downright untoward and malicious things to people, even murdering them, yet the system keeps right on going. Never does a statist say, "Shit, maybe this whole police state thing isn't panning out as expected."
It's always, "there are some good cops out there too." It's senseless Stockholm Syndrome battered wife apologies.
I love Watchmen because of this very notion. Tangent alert. Nite Owl II is your typical effete modern liberal and a sensitive intellectual. He believes violence is necessary to correct the social injustices, but believe it should be just. That doesn't stop him from continuing to work with people like the Comedian and Rorschach who use violence with a great deal less restraint. In fact, he enjoys Rorschach as a partner and accepts his overzealous violence. He may not condone it himself, but he sees it as a necessary evil. Breaking a few eggs to make an omelet.


You're not even making sense. No one said it's OK to have a few bad cops. They should be fired wherever they're found. But you can't catch all of them. You can't get rid of 100% of the bad cops without getting rid of 100% of cops in general, and if you did, there'd be a hell of a lot more violence. If men were angels, there would be no need for government, but they aren't. Anarchy = prehistoric tribal warfare, mob justice, etc.

"much more easily than say, getting rid of 100% of the bad cops without some kind of telepathic superpowers or magically preventing 100% of the crimes that lead to victims sueing the police"

Exactly my point about breaking a few eggs to make your big government omelet. Statists may dislike the atrocities of government, but they see it as a necessary casualty. Every day we see cops doing downright untoward and malicious things to people, even murdering them, yet the system keeps right on going. Never does a statist say, "Shit, maybe this whole police state thing isn't panning out as expected."

It's always, "there are some good cops out there too." It's senseless Stockholm Syndrome battered wife apologies.

I love Watchmen because of this very notion. Tangent alert. Nite Owl II is your typical effete modern liberal and a sensitive intellectual. He believes violence is necessary to correct the social injustices, but believe it should be just. That doesn't stop him from continuing to work with people like the Comedian and Rorschach who use violence with a great deal less restraint. In fact, he enjoys Rorschach as a partner and accepts his overzealous violence. He may not condone it himself, but he sees it as a necessary evil. Breaking a few eggs to make an omelet.

Their version of Stockholm Syndrome on the same gig was epic.