Are you implying that these men changed their behavior after #metoo? Nah... don't equate women getting woke by not taking men's crap anymore as to any change from a Jerk's behaviors. In fact, I'd argue that post-Trump, these Assholes felt empowered and think it's their divine right to doubling down and are even less likely to fess up to their crime.

In a perfect world, yes, but in reality, no.
Police do not have to tell the truth, and if a lie gets them the upper hand, they'll often lie. Asking them to explain your rights, especially after annoying them by being obstinate and repeating to them that you know your rights, is just dumb imo. They have no obligation to teach you or to be honest about them and every incentive not to.....although it would be nice if they did.

Edit: asking for a lengthy explanation after being told 'any answer besides"yes" is considered refusal' is a point where you will be penalized for asking what your rights are....white, black, or purple.

Explain how it's ok to administer a test at any time but this time is harassment because he failed them, please, because that's contradictory.

He parked on the freeway causing suspicion,
admitted to drinking and driving requiring a field test,
didn't follow directions so failed the field test,
then obstinately repeated that with the breathalyzer by not answering yes and taking it. (After being told anything but yes legally means no).
Please, what's harassment there?....because there's definitely something more imo.

Remove race from the equation, and it's a good arrest. Adding race in does nothing to negate that imo.


Edit: I was a white punk with a long Mohawk. I got harassed far worse than this repeatedly, including being thrown to the ground at gunpoint because an officer read my plate wrong and accused me of being a car thief. Attitude usually has far more to do with the outcome than anything else in my experience. When I was polite and followed instructions I almost always walked, even when in the wrong. When I argued, I got slapped hard, like a vandalism charge for a 4" chalk line on a sidewalk or 2 hours of having my car searched in front of my friends house.

If I'm misunderstanding and you aren't claiming this was a dwb arrest, apologies. That's the part I'm debating, because it seems wrong.

Vastly overreaching dishonest tags.
Not institutional or state sponsored.
Exaggeration like that earns my downvote. There's enough actual racism out there that no one needs to exaggerate and lie about it.
I saw nothing on the video that was actionable, so the claim that not harassing them with the law equates to support is just ludicrous.

Golly sir, I sure am glad you’re here to explain it to me, but just for shits and giggles, let me take a stab at it.

Elon Musk wants to make humanity a multi-planet species, otherwise we are at risk of some kind of planet wide extinction level event. Having looked at the problem, he thinks the fundamental issue is one of economics. If he can get the price per person for a trip to Mars down to $500k, he figures he’ll get enough mad, bad and rich AF people to give forming a colony a go.

But that first step from earth to orbit is motherfucking expensive and aside from crazy unproven tech like a space elevator, thanks to the Tyranny of the Rocket Equation there really isn’t a cheap way to do this in terms of energy expenditure.

Ok, thinks Elon, what’s the other major cost in this whole shooting things into space gig? Hmm, the big fucking rocket costs a lot... be nice if we could reuse that instead of building a new one each time.

So he works on building a reusable rocket, and after many hilarious videos of “rapid unscheduled disassembly”, fuck me if the damn thing doesn’t start to stick the landing!

So now we need to do the same, but with a bigger rocket and a heavier payload. Can’t really risk an actual payload (see previous video of RUD) so what to do?

Well, the sensible, cost effective thing would be just a big heavy weight. But that’s got fuck all viral marketing appeal, so if you’re gonna shoot something into space as part of a multi billion dollar rocket program, what’s a measly couple of hundred k compared to the millions in free advertising for both Tesla and SpaceX this will generate!

Well, look at that. Turns out I do understand this!

But if think sending an expensive sports car into space WASN’T a frivolous waste of money, I invite you to spend time with someone sleeping rough or a family who doesn’t know where their next meal is coming from.

As I said, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do it, but don’t pretend this was anything other than a billionaire doing something insanely cool and expensive because he thought it was cool.

some *quality cox there. Love me some thermodynamics. Gives me an opportunity to bust out one of my favourite science quotes:

"The law that entropy always increases holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell's equations — then so much the worse for Maxwell's equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation — well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation."
Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington

Entropy is, somewhat perversely, information.
*related=https://videosift.com/video/What-is-NOT-Random

Excellent.

"The problem is that very dangerous people have very easy access to very dangerous weapons."

So, there's 3 issues there. Address any ONE of the three, and things would get better. Maybe not "job done" better, but better. Take moderate, corrective steps on all three, and we'd be MUCH better off.

1) Dangerous people. How could we take dangerous people out of the equation? Background checks. Licensing. Revoking gun ownership privileges for convicts and people diagnosed with mental health problems.

2) Easy access. What could we do better to sensibly and fairly restrict access to firearms? Well, lets see ... fucking anything stands a better chance of working than the nothing that we're doing now. So again, background checks, licensing, registration. Enforcement of said requirements.

3) Dangerous weapons. I think a legitimate criticism of "the left"s typical stance on gun control is that they might be a bit TOO focused on this one.
There is some core truth to the NRA harping "guns don't kill people, people kill people." If a murderous psycho decides that they want to kill a bunch of people, they can find ways of doing it that don't necessarily require guns.
However, it is also true that easy access to weapons designed for war can escalate the degree of tragedy quickly.

Basically, this one and #2 are a trade-off. Bolt action rifles and shotguns might be OK with fewer restrictions. Semi-automatic? High capacity? Doesn't it make sense at some point to at least be a bit careful about who we allow unfettered access to these things?


Trump's parroting of the NRA plan to put MORE guns in schools would be laugh out loud stupid if it wasn't guaranteed to end in tragedy rather than comedy. I can't fathom how anyone, even the nuttiest of gun nuts, could think that is a good idea. And I'm actually rather pro-gun. But, c'mon ... some limitations and restrictions just make obvious sense.

A car is a much better and more legitimate general-purpose "tool" than a firearm. But improper use is dangerous and potentially deadly, so we take some common sense steps to try to limit that. Want to drive? Get a license. Pass a safety test. Pass physical and medical tests to show that you are capable of controlling the vehicle. Periodically re-test to stay current. And, expect to LOSE your license if you drive irresponsibly (drunk, moving violations, etc.).

I don't think those are unfair requirements to be granted the privilege of a license to drive a motor vehicle. To me anybody that has a proper respect for the utility of a firearm, and also a respect for the damage that improper use of firearms can do, should be in favor of sensible restrictions and limitations placed on the privilege of being allowed to own and use a firearm, just like we accept for cars.

Respect. I live in Canada. So my perspective is probably warped or highly misinformed and ignorant of the USA's gun control, 2nd amendment argument. But my thought is, what's wrong with not being able to own anything that exists? Assault weapons shouldn't be made available to the public, it should be restricted to the military. Period. It's just incredible how these mass murdering weapons were even allowed to be owned in the first place. Even if the argument is that it's enshrined in the 2nd amendment, then the political discussion should be about changing/more narrowly define the amendment. How old is the 2nd amendment? How applicable is it to modern needs?

Even only allowing regulated shooting ranges to have these assault weapons just for on-site shooting is good thing. It allows gun lovers to hold them in hand, try them for target practice, have some fun but not allow anyone to take them out of the shooting range. Take the private ownership part out of the equation.

I love fighter jets, tanks, rockets & lots of high tech military stuff. Not crazy about guns, but I do appreciate their beauty. Still, I don't need to own them to appreciates them.

Society (not just the USA) really need to away from the assault weapon-ownership mentality... yes, that means asking gun owners to give up that particular rights. But there's virtue in doing it for the society...

Just can't believe the cowardice of those "nothing we can do about it" Republicans like Rubio. It's part of a big, sick symptom of government under the choke-hold of the NRA, Big Business, Big Banks, lobbyists instead of the constituents. Just feel sad for the People.

"It's exactly what he said, they're both unacceptable, and he's trying to define the spectrum. "
But the spectrum already exists. It's already enshrined in law for a start. I don't need Maher to lecture me about it.

"Yes, if some dude broke my leg, yes I would appreciate that they didn't murder me. "
Of course. You'd probably still report them to the police for assault though?

"Please admit, it's at least imprecise to have a one-size-fits-all justice system. "
I have. Several times.

"If and when people are being sentenced to death and/or extreme prison terms, yeah, let's talk about proportionate response."

"The sentence for these crimes is different and that's correct."

"If Aziz Ansari ends up sharing a cell with Harvey Weinstein, I will 100% stand up and say "hang the fuck on, those two are NOT equivalent". "

"Believe it or not, I've been in a sexual encounter where I've been forced to ..."
What happened to you wasn't rape, agreed, but it wasn't far off. If the roles were reversed and you had sneakily taken off a condom, in some jurisdictions that WOULD be rape.

"I don't think it's crazy to not want her to lose her job, and not want to file criminal charges against her, --- and this is key --- because even though something happened that was non consensual, I don't consider what happened rape, and I would NEVER equate what happened to me to what happened to all of Weinstein's victims because they fall on opposite ends of the spectrum.

Neither one was okay, and one is worse than the other."

Why does it matter that it wasn't rape? It was still a violation of trust and one that could have had lifelong consequences for you.

If she did that to you, who's to say she won't do it again to someone else?

Again, I go back to the assault metaphor. Even if an assailant doesn't murder you, they're still a violent aggressor and a potential danger to others.

Or even at a lower degree still, if someone treats you badly or swindles you, are you not entitled to warn others?

If what happened to you happened to me, I would warn anyone I knew about that kind of behaviour.

No, making the argument that one is not as bad as the other isn't the same as making excuses. It's exactly what he said, they're both unacceptable, and he's trying to define the spectrum.

I have a touch more time, so let me go back to your first example.
Yes, if some dude broke my leg, yes I would appreciate that they didn't murder me.

Obviously, I don't want either thing to happen, but justice is about assigning degrees of a spectrum to an infinite number of variables of what is decidedly wrong. Please admit, it's at least imprecise to have a one-size-fits-all justice system.

I won't repeat the examples already given that should have laid bare the problems equating what should be corrected gingerly vs using a heavy hand, but I want to reiterate that they ring true for me.

NSFW warning:

I've had bad dates where I've been made to feel awkward. Believe it or not, I've been in a sexual encounter where I've been forced to hmmm... finish... inside a girl when I didn't want to. We had been together a short time and she was ENAMORED with me, and I felt 'meh' about her. (don't put your dick in crazy)

Long story short, I'm strict about using birth control so I'm not making kids when I don't want to. Although, in the heat of the moment, I'm not above a tried and true pulling out for lack of a better option. This had been the plan going into the sexual encounter, but when I let out a warning about a climax, instead of helping me push her off, she pushed her hands against my shoulders and clamped her thighs onto me. I objected "wait!!! no!!!" but not being a fucking Buddhist monk with complete control over every muscle in my body, well, you can imagine where it went from there.


Shortly thereafter, she started asking me what I thought about this or that baby name and it became clearer what she was really after. (yes really)

I waited for confirmation that she wasn't pregnant and we broke up immediately after, because of that and a general disinterest that I had towards her as a person.

That was when I was ehh? 19? idk, somewhere around there. More than 10 years ago at least.

But I digress, did what she did feel a little 'rape-y' to me? I said no, It was something we talked about beforehand, setting up parameters, etc. but it ended up just being a bad experience. Because of that bad experience I never really talked to her again. She does some kind of work in 3d printing now last I checked.

I don't think it's crazy to not want her to lose her job, and not want to file criminal charges against her, --- and this is key --- because even though something happened that was non consensual, I don't consider what happened rape, and I would NEVER equate what happened to me to what happened to all of Weinstein's victims because they fall on opposite ends of the spectrum.

Neither one was okay, and one is worse than the other.

Pretending racial progress equates to equality and the end of racism is a game only played by racists and those who've bought into racist ideology....the kind espoused by Prager.

One narrow category where, only according to Prager (a historically completely untrustworthy source) blacks might make more than similar whites is not evidence that there's no racism in business.
The median adjusted household income among black householders with at least a bachelor’s degree was $82,300 in 2014, while the income of college-educated white householders was $106,600 and whites are >33% more likely to be able to earn a degree.
In 2014, median black household income was about $43,300, while white household income was about $71,300.

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2016/06/27/1-demographic-trends-and-economic-well-being/

I found this pretty racist.
It equates being black with unprofessional and inappropriate conduct.
He said at least 3 things in the break room worthy of a firing.

I was taught that E=(+-)MC2. (This implies antimatter)

I'm disappointed he wasn't totally clear that all he was doing was adding kinetic energy to the base equation. Of course that adds energy to the system, but the base equation is about mass/energy (how much total energy a certain resting mass contains) not all energy. Heat the mass, you need another equation. Make it radioactive, another.

Also, maybe it's been proven wrong by now, but I recall experiments showing photons do have at least a pseudo mass, proven by their ability to move objects (like the spinning black and white squares inside a vacuum toy and theoretical solar sails).

I advocate for more firearm regulations, as does the NRA finally, and more enforcement of them. My home is protected by multiple legal firearms. These two statements of fact are in no way at odds.
Only a provocateur would say any regulation equates to a complete ban. No thinking person would make themselves look so ridiculous by spouting such nonsense.

How about comparing murder rates.....4.8 per 100000 U.S. vs .92 Britain. I'd rather be burgled than murdered.

Oh Bob. If his tactics were used primarily against whites or if he was black or a democrat, you would say he's the worst monster in American history.
$140 million to pay for his illegal actions, with dozens of multi million dollar claims still in litigation....that's a great sheriff? 160 deaths in his jail that he gleefully calls a concentration camp, many if not most from undetermined causes....that's a great sheriff?
Yes, under Obama, the DOJ was interested in people abusing their power in ways that were clearly unconstitutional, like pulling people over because they looked Hispanic for no other reason than to check if they were legal citizens...a clear violation of civil rights....but yeah...fuck that constitution thing if it's in the way of fucking with beaners, huh? Wow.

Trump has set a precedent that you and yours will regret when power swings the other direction. You constantly seem to forget that it will.
There are far more democrats than republicans in America, so again, not sure where you get this idea besides wishful thinking....similar to wishing you could equate the radicals with the liberals. good luck with that.