For me, the impersonality of the internet is a chance to rise above my baser instincts.

I am a much better behaving person on the internet than I am in person. I have a chance to edit my knee jerk first responses.

You make a different choice under the same circumstances.

As you say -- "if you don't want to be confronted about your opinions, you shouldn't make them public."

So you made your opinions about me public, by attacking me personally. And I responded.

We're even, right?

In reply to this comment by GenjiKilpatrick:
If I knew you in real life, i wouldn't be so aggressive because it's rude.

But since the internet is impersonal and you touched on a subject I'm passionate about.. I tend to let my adjectives & tone off the leash.

Tho I think you're wise enough to realize that - if you don't want to be confronted about your opinions, you shouldn't make them public.

You made a statement. I called you out on it.
You had your chance to enlighten me on why it's reasonable to arrest members of a peaceful demonstration. You chose not to. And after some badgering I let it go.

You posted a video on the exact same subject matter.
You then posted a comment reiterating the exact same - what I recognize to be a deluded - statement.

Now you have this funny look your face like..
   "Why did you call me out again after I made myself a very large target?"

Again Gale. It's the interwebs and VideoSift. What did you expect?
  [Something more ideal, apparently. Don't worry, me too.] = P

Not a better avatar.

"So what was the point of listing things we agree on."

Because I thought that we could start a conversation from there.

I thought if I could get one email from you that was just.... clean. This is where we could be together in harmony. A place for us to start. We could move forward.

But that wasn't how you responded, sweetpea. Instead of showing me that we could have a little place, just a moment, where we could each be ourselves, you went off on me again, in the very next sentence.

This isn't fun. I don't like words being put in my mouth. It's tiring.

But you're right. I did say that if you came back with three areas of agreement, I would engage.

I was mistaken. I had an idealist vision in my own head of how this conversation would be magically transformed. It wasn't, and it was wrong of me to force you into that space.

We're both idealists, in our own way. Isn't that funny? We're also both a little bit of a bully -- I use sweet words, but I pushed you around nonetheless.

Another place of agreement! We're both idealistic bullies!

And I am happy, in my pragmatic, consensus building, Pollyanna way.

I wish for you the peace that I am feeling right now. I'm sorry that you are left frustrated.


In reply to this comment by GenjiKilpatrick:
So what was the point of listing things we agree on..

If you're closed minded about everything else?

I never said: "it's not corruption. Mr. Anslinger just needed better training"

I never said: "However, your rationale for police brutality being acceptable is based on the assumption that countries & citizenship exist."

Which means this isn't a logical conclusion: I've been attempting to challenge the basis of that rationale the entire time but you don't want to engage on that point for whatever reason.

However, if you don't think that "countries and citizenship exists" then you are correct. I do not want to engage on that point for any reason whatsoever.

We are back to where we started -- you are a passionate idealist, and I applaud your passion.

I don't want to talk about it though. Or rather, I don't want to be lectured about it. It tires me out, non-idealist that I am.

We want different things, hunny bunny. That is okay. It doesn't make either of us wrong.

Why is it so important to you that I ... what? Agree with you? Hear you? Understand you? I would love for you to agree with me, hear me, understand me but I am also willing to walk away.

We want different things. You are young and passionate with a fire in your belly about the inequities and injustices in this world. I am an old fart who is hopeful when I carve out one piece of agreement between two people, who gets excited when someone says something that helps me see the world in a different way. You want to rage, I want to build consensus.

We want different things. It's okay.

In reply to this comment by GenjiKilpatrick:
Citizen United case ruling. = Bullshit

War on Drugs = Bullshit

Iunno? Defense of Marriage Act = Bullshit

Those are overwhelming evidence that governments are facades to cover self-interested motives.
[Like Harry Anslinger's fight to criminalize cannabis cause he was about to lose his job]

But when someone resists those selfish motives or points out that corruption,
you claim "oh well they're dumb for resisting" and "it's not corruption. Mr. Anslinger just needed better training"

You were harpin' about Rational Minds in the lounge, correct?

However, your rationale for police brutality being acceptable is based on the assumption that countries & citizenship exist.

I've been attempting to challenge the basis of that rationale the entire time but you don't want to engage on that point for whatever reason. =/

List three things we agree on.

In reply to this comment by GenjiKilpatrick:
We agree on stuff.

But how could we ever move forward if you refuse to even look (let alone accept as fact) the evidence I'm presenting.

http://www.mind-trek.com/reports/cona.htm

I'm confused. You say that your definition of "corruption" is literal "not working that way it's supposed to" but then link me to a definition that matches what I think corruption means -- actual, well, corruption.

We're not going to get far if we can't agree on the meaning of corruption. Heck, we can't even get started.

I just don't agree with any of your base assumptions, honey bunny.

I don't agree with this: "Both the institutions of US government & police don't function in the way that they claim to be designed. i.e. maximizing liberty while minimizing suffering"

And I REALLY don't agree with this: "the literal daily suffering of innocent people for no good reason i.e. dancing in protest." Those activists didn't suffer, they aren't innocent, there was a good reason. They are so thrilled they got thrown to the ground -- they set out to be thrown to the ground. They couldn't be more pleased. They won.

I'm sorry, I just don't even want to answer the two questions you posed. I can't get past the first one. "Who or what do you feel the police are protectors of? (proof?)" Google it. I don't think anything different than anyone who has had a problem and called the police for help.

I'm sorry, Genji, I just don't have the energy for this conversation if that is the question you have to ask me. I know you think that is a serious question, however for me it is proof of too big a divide between us.

I suspect we agree on many things. Citizens United, for example. I'll bet you hate that Supreme Court ruling as much as I do. The war of drugs. I'll bet you think that is a huge waste of money and human lives, just as I do. Legalization of Marijuana? I'm with you, babe.

I am more interested in concrete conversations, rather than your esoteric bent. The divide is too big for email exchanges -- perhaps if we lived in the same town, we could haggle for months over endless cups of coffee. These dueling monologues that email conversations digress into? I'd rather watch a cat fart video. And I don't much like cats.

Here's my philosophy of humans and life: "Everyone is doing the best they can in every given moment. Their best may stink, but it is the best they can do." Some people's best is so horrendous, you have to keep those people out of your life -- angry, abusive people, for example. That's their best -- I believe those folks are deeply damaged and are acting out of their pain. And I walk away from them.

But most people are just normally damaged. They have bad moments. I try not to define folks by their worst moments, but by their best. And that includes police officers.

I don't think that we can agree that police officers are human. If we can't start there, we got nowhere to go.

Sometimes I bore myself, as a good friend of mine says.... Blah blah blah

In reply to this comment by GenjiKilpatrick:
That's a really great video. It's proof of a hypothesis I had too. = D

Tho with that framing, I can understand how you may have interpreted my & that activist's cynical statements considering how.. philosophical? your definition of corruption seems to be.

For many, I think they think plain old literal "not working the way it's s'pposed to" a good definition for corruption.

More specifically - Political, Police, & Corporate were the types of corruption I was alluding to.

Now if we're discussing that video & incident from a literal view.
Literally, Both the institutions of US government & police don't function in the way that they claim to be designed.
i.e. maximizing liberty while minimizing suffering

So with that shallower, pragmatic framing of corruption; you should probably see how my intemperate idealism could make me so passionate about the literal daily suffering of innocent people for no good reason
i.e. dancing in protest

~~~
Okay, I'll stop the wall of text here in a second.

Tho I would like to inquire about a few more things.

Your & @Shepppard's admiration for the positive effects of police officers seem to be based off the concept of The Correlation of Allegiance and Protection

"Since the police do provide some protection they obviously deserve my allegience"

I'd like to ask:

Who or what do you feel the police are protectors of? (proof?)

Does the sheer willingness to protect that who or what, justify the means by which that protection is accomplished?

http://videosift.com/video/You-Have-No-Idea-How-Wrong-You-Are

Here is one source. He discusses how corrupt our government was in prior decades, and how we now have arguably the least corrupt government in our history.

Not saying that he is 100% right, but comparatively speaking, I think he has a point.

I also look at foreign governments that are labeled "corrupt" in the media and I see little in common with America.

Perhaps our real issue here is the definition of "corrupt."

And now we sneak up on why I called you naive.

Naive is a negative word, though. A more accurate adjective would be "idealistic."

I have found it is the idealists who are the most devastated by an imperfect world. I see human error, I hear "corrupt police state." I see political compromise in a complicated world, I hear "spineless sell-out and/or corrupt."

And we get back to why I admire you -- it is your idealism that gets me to rethink my positions.

You can't tell it, but I erase many things before I post them. I find that as I write, I see the fallacy and the complacency in my unexamined world view, and I re-think, re-examine, re-write.

The first time @blankfist called me an "apologist" I took a good hard look at how I thought about different topics (after I insulted him back, those were early days here on the sift.) I still hold the same points of view in general, but I am not so knee jerk in my responses. Knowing that blankie is watching, or might be watching, I consider my words carefully. My Imaginary Blankfist keeps me intellectually honest.

So that is why I say our government is not corrupt. What would you like me to know now? What do you think I can honestly say differently? Convince me, my friend, convince me!

In reply to this comment by GenjiKilpatrick:
Hah. Thanks for even acknowledging my questions & concerns.

Tho after this whole "The government is not corrupt" thing.

I'm much more curious about what in your experience and knowledge has lead you to that conclusion.

Sorry if you felt offended.

But I didn't call you ignorant. Sorry that I didn't recognize what you posted as a "sincere philosophical inquiry." Unfortunately, I do think you are naive.

However, please note that I just sent this PM to someone about the "debate" on the comment stream:

"There is a place for the passionate -- they provide a service to our complacent society, in keeping the middle on their toes." (Then I said something that was a little rude, so I am not sharing that with you. I don't want to offend you.)

However, I didn't engage because I disagree with the factual basis of your point of view.

I agree with you that police abuses must be dealt with. I don't know what else you want from me. What do you want me to say? What do you want me to believe?

Convince me that there is some basis for moving forward on this topic, and I'll re-engage.

Promise.

(I normally send this kind of thing privately, but since you have spanked me publicly ("I thought you had better manners"), I shall "apologize" publicly -- not much of an apology is it?)

In reply to this comment by GenjiKilpatrick:
Imply that I'm an idiot (for agreeing with that guy's statement)
Call me naive & ignorant.
Then ignore my sincere philosophical inquiry because you disagree with the wording?

I thought you had better manners, bareboard. = /

Couldn't you just address the substance of my comment instead of nitpicking at the syntax?

Why make your opinion known in a community such as VideoSift - of all places, if you're not willing to discuss the substance of that opinion?

>> ^bareboards2:

I had no idea how much of an idiot this guy is. "The police force in America does not exist for public safety." This is so laughably stupid.

>> ^bareboards2:

I don't believe our government is blatantly corrupt. I think that you are naive in thinking that, and show a lack of understanding of history and the definition of corrupt.
I don't agree with your 15% figure of "good cops.

...so the rest of the comment is ignored.
I'm out of here.

Yeah. It's probably good thing I grew out of name calling when I turned 13 then, huh?

Now I just slyly insinuate things. So much safer. >_>

In reply to this comment by GenjiKilpatrick:
Hah, what Jonny said. For Example.

>> ^jonny:

Oh hey, congrats on the bronze star, too. Now you can't get banned (unless you really, really piss off dag).

So, Genji, I saw Werner Herzog's new doc tonight. Cave of Forgotten Dreams. About a cave that was discovered in France in 1994 or so, with 35,000 year old cave paintings. Stunning.

http://www.google.com/search?q=cave+paintings+chauvet&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=Pdo&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&prmd=ivnsu&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=un
iv&sa=X&ei=I-TdTariCYPWiALsq5T4Cg&ved=0CEoQsAQ&biw=1280&bih=489

The movie was a bit too much florid Herzog for my tastes, and I saw it in 2D and it was structured to be seen in 3D, but still. I learned something. The paintings look contemporary -- they are, well, stunning.

And I thought of you in the middle of this doc. Herzog went to a couple of museums to show other archeological works of the same time period.

One of the oldest artistic representations humans have is the Venus of Willendorf-type sculptures. You've seen them? The woman's fertile body, with tiny head, feet and hands, large belly, large thighs, large breasts, large labia. All about the fecundity. The first human image deemed important enough to sculpt.

The sculpture shown in the movie was apparently a pendant -- instead of a head, there was a ring on top for a cord or something to go through so it could be worn or held up.

And I thought -- hey, that's genji's avatar, minus the jello shot!!

I'm on the sift too much, man....

and what bigotry is that? by god, i was just called a knob-gobbler by some cretin who believes that homosexuals are beneath him! what a lout! i'll be sure to explain to him your theories on ethnocentric bias, by golly. as we both know, you're incapable of committing ethnocentric bias -- cultural jack-of-all-trades that you are -- and will not have to worry about being seen as a shitty holier-than-thou hypocrite.

In reply to this comment by GenjiKilpatrick:
Alas, you would be wrong to assume that.

That would be entail - C. fallacy of refutation: straw person

Here, look on this nifty chart. You'll probably need it later on.

But again, what does any of this have to do with your bigotry?
[Which you clearly understand and accept.]

In reply to this comment by solecist:
says the guy who just called us thick-skulled knob-gobblers. what is a knob-gobbler, genji? am i right in assuming that you've just used a term referencing male homosexuality in a negative manner? sounds like ethnocentric bias to me. i would know, because some pretentious twat just told me all about it.

I enjoyed your use of "shit" and " fuck ".

and the answer is, Money.

In reply to this comment by GenjiKilpatrick:
How the FUCK do you get a hold of shit like that?

congrats on the silver!

http://videosift.com/video/Bernie-Sanders-slaps-down-Rand-Paul-Health-care-as-slavery?loadcomm=1#comment-1205705

I watched that gangsta rap clip in the chat, This is a real track to weave 'n sway to.

Fun fact : I love Ladybugs and refuse to willfully cause them harm, them and bees. I have respect for bees.