Now this is good footage. You see and hear what the cop sees and hears and you actually have context before the incident. This why all cops should wear body cams and why body cam footage should be released to the public.

The cop was entirely justified here. The suspect tried to flee the scene, refused to cooperate or comply with commands and physically resisted arrest. When the suspect repeatedly tried to keep the car door open with her legs, the cops made the correct choice in pepper-spraying her. It's very hard to close a door when someone is aggressively pushing it open. Brute force might have worked but that would have been dangerous and potentially lead to accidental injury. Pepper spray was the safest option.

And newtboy, ignoring the police is not "totally fine." In fact, it's one of the dumbest and most dangerous things you can do. Police are authority figures with the right to detain or arrest you. As such, the best way to deal with police is to listen and cooperate in a civil manner. If the girl had done that, she wouldn't have been cuffed, carried off to the police car or pepper-sprayed. I know it's cool to hate cops (and authority figures in general) but at a certain point, pride needs to give way to reason and logic.

Misleading title, otherwise it would be a good post. The slave trade of the 1700's would never have grown into what if became if there were not buyers.

@newtboy, you are correct. Slavery indeed long predates the trade of Africans across oceans. Though, it probably didn't start in Mesopotamia because it was probably happening a little bit everywhere there were tribes that were aggressive with each other.

When slavery is thought of in a modern sense, we tend to think of the slave trade during the early stages of the industrial revolution.

And indeed, members of different tribes were more or less kidnapped and brought to the coast by coastal tribes, where they were sold to ships, which usually originated in Europe or N. America.

One of the busiest ports for the slave trade was Dakar, Senegal. The kingdom there would collect people, to take to Goree Island where they would be later loaded onto ships.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gor%C3%A9e

I'll throw my hat into the internet justice ring for funsies.

I'm guessing the "pro cyclist" folks that view this have never lived in a location with:

1.) A city that spends millions of tax revenue on shared roads, road diets and special lanes for cyclists
2.) A large population of self righteous, passive aggressive cyclists that ignore road warnings, laws or common sense
3.) Or had their vehicle leaned on, mirrors folded in, kicked/punched or spat on while sitting at a traffic crossing

As a cyclist and motorist, I'm glad they got soaked.

Ah that makes more sense now. I thought it seemed awfully aggressive how they removed the deflated Pikachu lol.

@newtboy
gonna have to disagree with ya there mate.

not so much on the speculation in regards to trump involvement,or some kind of capitulation with russia.there quite possibly be some co-ordination between the kremlin and the trump administration.trumps alleged ties with putin may all be true,but until i see some actual evidence,that is all it will ever be;speculation.

and i think chomsky's criticism is a valid one.
the "russia russia russia" drum beating is reminiscent of the republicans and their meth-induced media barrage of "benghazi benghazi benghazi",and even after their precious political whipping tool had been debunked,they STILL beat that drum.

and of course it is hypocritical of the US government to cry about political election interference! america has been interfering with other,sovereign countries democratic elections for decades!

because here in murica' we like our allies to be either be run by despotic leaders,or rigid theocracies,because democracies are hard to manipulate and control.can't be bribing an entire citizenry now can we? we like our foreign allies like we like our meat,juicy and tender and easy pickings.

now i am not here to defend putin.the man is a brutal authoritarian,who may appear to some as a russian patriot,but i just see a ruthless and saavy political player who appeases the only constituency that matters to him.the russian oligarchs,and they OWN that fucking joint.

but it was NATO who began to encroach on russian borders,not the other way around.in fact,as early as the 80's we began that encroachment.we lied to gorbachev,who was removed as president in shame,to be replaced by yeltsin.who was america's pick for their own little tool of the kremlin.

russia's military build-up has been a direct response to our ever-increasing wars of aggression in the middle east.putin has stated so publicly.

russia's biggest export is oil and natural gas,and russia pretty much is the sole provider for all of europe.with our wars in the middle east,and now qatar aggressively seeking to push through their own oil and gas pipeline to sell to europe.(what?you thought yemen and syria were about civil wars and terrorists?).

what did you THINK russia was going to do?
sit back and let their only major export be challenged?

and now that trump,like the buffoon he is,publicly stated that if the baltic states are not willing to pay their fair share towards NATO,then they will be removed.opening the door for putin.

poor latvia...

but lets waste all this time on "russia russia russia",while ignoring the larger implications of a fucking world war.

did russia manipulate US elections?
possibly..probably..
was the trump administration complicit?
possibly..probably..

is their any evidence beside speculation,and coincidence?
nope.

chomsky makes a valid point.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-shifrinson-russia-us-nato-deal--20160530-snap-story.html

Your video, Passive Aggressive Relationship Techniques, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

"quality proteins" do you even science bro? You're trying to call out health professionals on their lack of scientific ability, but you go an use a phrase that means absolutely nothing beyond the meat commercial it came from.

I'm not going to waste 30 minutes of my time getting a list of studies together, because all you ever do is reply with aggressive hyperbole.

I grew up in a Christian home (Methodist) but never really bought in and considered myself an atheist from about ~12 years old or so.

@poolcleaner said that atheists might be the worst at "respect(ing) my beliefs and recogniz(ing) that I am not recruiting them and they are not recruiting me".

There's two parts of that. Respecting other beliefs, and not proselytizing.

Just speaking for myself, I would say that I am an atheist specifically because I don't respect the Christian beliefs that I grew up with, and feel much the same way about the dogmatic elements of any religion. Most religions share the basic tenet of the "Golden Rule" (or claim that they do), and as far as I am concerned that is the only thing of value to be found in any religion -- although it can exist perfectly fine outside of any religious context.

That's where proselytizing comes in though. For a while when I was younger, I wanted to "spread the good news" of atheism -- to show others what was so obvious and important to me, that idea that the Golden Rule works just as well outside of any religious context. I was "indignant" (as poolcleaner put it) and quick to tell people that I am atheist and to sort of "pick a fight" about it. I wanted to show people just how stupid and wrong they were.

I think LOTS of atheists are like that, especially early on after they part ways with religion. To be fair, a lot of that is defensiveness since atheists tend to get proselytized to a LOT by Christians that learn/discover that they are an atheist -- especially in the US.

Now I'm 20 years older and I live in a country that is 95% Buddhist, 4% Islamic, and 1% Christian/Other. Thailand isn't even really close to the most diverse Asian country in religious terms (Singapore has 5 religions with 10%+ of the population, with Buddhist being the most at 34%) but there is an air of practiced religious acceptance / tolerance here that is WAY different from back home in the US.

I'd wager that amongst the major religions, Christianity might contain the highest percentage of the "proselytizing type" -- those that really strongly believe in the message enough to want to spread it to those who don't, or those that have never really questioned their beliefs but who nonetheless buy in enough to think that it is important to get it out there. On the other hand, there are many more Christians who may be very strong believers but who are comfortable keeping that all internal and not proselytizing.

With atheists, I'd say that there is a high correlation between being very "out" / open about their atheism and being the "proselytizing type" of atheist. So, if you know that someone is an atheist, it is fairly likely that they will be a bit "indignant" about it. If someone is an atheist but doesn't feel the need to inform others about it, most people would never know/assume they were an atheist. I'm not talking about "closeted" atheists; just the difference between those who are going to tell you within 10 minutes of meeting you that they are an atheist without the subject ever coming up, and those that will only mention it if you directly ask them about it.

Keeping that it mind, I can actually believe that from an outside perspective, known atheists might be more aggressive than known Christians just due to that sort of selection bias. Maybe.

In a world where the world ends at the end of your block
And them uh, little whirlwinds spin friction round the clock
I'll be savage, hunt and gather the average rather cadaver
Cock back hammer, splatter matter all over cell phone and calendar
No peace, yeah, in the middle of a war zone, riddle when the norm thinks slow
No sleep, yeah, with the shades down low, on the down low fighting with a dream
I creep, yeah, all secrets please, I don't need to speak
I'm paranoid like a man in the land of the free
To set up and let us burn and turn cheek, damn
Stop with the octagon, top your block, I'm gone
Off my rock, no songs, no more locked, yeah
Just a little bit a prison for everyone of us
We won't listen till there isn't any more of us
These days we quick to part ways with rights like "okay"
Here, let's be clear, for the record I did not sign up for lockdown
Or any kind of shock and I'm so bored

You must have forgot just who you were dealing with
Nothing less than aggression so naked, so crystal clear with a
Trust in absolutely fucking nothing but Doomtree
Step up your thought game lame, we're all thirsty!

It's like they leave us no option
Walking these streets, heat is watching
These preachers speak from their pockets
These teachers...bring it back c'mon
These teachers reach but can't stop it
Seedlings so poisoned, so lost and
Follow these prophets to nonsense
Tossing what's right to the dust
And I ain't no casualty
Got no surface with spotless morality
My dirt might have to cover up my grave
But I keep my fear of faith
And filth clutter up my cave
Got me looking for disinfectant
(I don't know how to behave)
God, I'm bored!

You must have forgot just who you were dealing with
Nothing less than aggression so naked, so crystal clear with a
Trust in absolutely fucking nothing but Doomtree
Step up your thought game lames, we're all thirsty!

Mooooooooore!...
So thirsty for mooooooooore!...

@bcglorf

i don't think using @drradon 's example of anarchy a good use as a rebuttal.

now may be larken rose's vision is an extreme example,taken from the von mises institute,and where they dreamily offer a counter to police with a "non-aggression principle".while cute and adorable,humans tend to be far more vicious and violent in nature,especially when desperate.

but again,i think our respective approaches to authority will not find common ground here.

i do not seek a leader,but i am ok with a representative,though i do not seem to have any in my government at the moment.

i find it curious,amazing and not a little disturbing just how easily people will quietly,and tacitly accept a police that has become more and more draconian,violent and aggressive while SIMULTANEOUSLY decreasing the citizens rights to protect themselves,defend themselves and resist unlawful police practices.

because they simply change the law to make what WAS illegal...legal.with a stroke of a pen.

and i simply cannot respect when an american says,without any sense of justice or history,to just sit down,shut up and do what you are told.

while claiming they are a patriot,waving their american flag made in china.

the history of law enforcement in this country reveals that their main job,their main focus and duty is NOT to the poor,the dispossessed or the marginalized.

the police's job is to protect those who hold assets,who have money and wield political power.

and before you say anything,i am quite aware that there are some,and they are the majority,who do their job with honor and distinction.my argument is not about singular police officers but rather the systematic problems inherent in the system.

lets take my city for example.
i am blessed enough to live adjacent to a very wealthy and influential housing development.

average police response time?=7 minutes.

right down the street,not 10 miles down the road,is a depressed area of town.industry and manufacturing abandoned that area 20 years ago.it is stricken with prostitution,heroin addicts and abject poverty.

average police response time?=22 minutes

yet the main police station is in THAT area.

or should i bring up the history of american labor movement?
where the coal miners in west virginia decided to strike,and because the owners of the mines were politically connected.the governor sent in the state police to...and this should send chills down your spine...shoot any miners unwilling to go back to work.

and they did.
they murdered any coal miner still willing to stand up against the owners of the mine,and this included women and children.

now lets examine that for a minute.
workers for a coal mine decided to strike for better working conditions (which were horrible) and actually have a day off,besides sunday (because:god).

the owner of the mine,who was losing immense of amount of money due to zero production of coal,called the governor to have the state police,a civil institution,sent in to put those people down.to force them to either get back to work or face violence.

*now the owner brought in his own mercenary group to assist in the process of intimidation,strong arm tactics and violence.

i will add one more story that is personal,and comes from my own family,and may possibly explain my attitude towards police in general.

my father was born in 1930,in alton illinois.
now that small town had been hit particularly hard during the depression.my father spoke of not having indoor plumbing until he went into the navy,and how the floors in his childhood home were simple boards over dirt.

he grew up extremely poor,and my grandfather struggled to find steady work,and i gather from what my father told me.my grandpa made bootleg beer out of the bathtub.so he and his 6 brothers and 1 sister had to bathe in the mississippi river while grandpa tried to make money by selling illegal hooch.

my father also regaled me with stories of the chores he had as the youngest of 8 kids.it was his job every morning to head to the train tracks and pick the coal that dropped from the coal carts.(which he admitted to being lazy and stole directly from the very full coal cart itself while his brother kept an eye out for the station master).

my point is that my father grew up in desperate and poor times.

but one story always stood out,and i think it is because it has a wild west feel to it that always transfixed me,and i made him tell me the story over and over as a child.

when times are tough,people will do whatever they have to in order to survive,so my grandfather making illegal hooch was not the only illegalities being played out in that small town.neighbor upon neighbor did what they had to,and most were considered criminals in the eyes of the state.

so i guess one of my grandpa's friends was on the run from the law,and sought refuge at my grandpa's home.which he allowed,because neighbors take care of neighbors,at least they used to.

well,in a small town everybody knows everybody,and eventually three police officers showed up at my grandpa's house,and demanded that he turn over (i forgot the guys name).

and i remember the pride on my fathers face whenever he retold this story....

my grandfather stood tall on the top of his stairs facing his front door,holding his gun he was given during WW1 and told the police officers (which he knew.small town remember?),that if they took one step into his home..he would blow their heads off.

now this is a story retold from a childs perspective many years later.i am sure my fathers memory was a tad....biased..but i would bet the meaty parts were accurate.

now my question is this:
how would that exact same scenario play out in todays climate?

well,we would see on the 6 o'clock news how a family was tragically shot to death for harboring a criminal and that the police had done EVERYTHING in their power to avoid this kind of violence.

i know this is long,and i hope i didn't lose you along the way,but i think we should not dismiss the very real slow decent into a society that silently obeys,quietly accepts more and more authoritarian powers all in the name of "safety",and that any form of resistance is to be viewed as "criminal" and "troublesome".

so while i agree that "when should we shoot a cop" should be in the realm of:let us try to never do that.

i also cannot agree to placing cops on a hero platform as if their job is somehow sacrosanct and beyond reproach.they are human beings,of limited intellect,whose main job it is to protect those who own property,have wealth and wield political power.

and with the current disparity and blatant inequality their job has been more and more focused on keeping those 30% undesirables down.

the poor,the destitute,the marginalized,the addict and the junkie and the petty criminals.

those are a threat to the "better" citizens.they are a blight on a community that should be cleansed from the tender eyes of those who are deemed more "worthy".

rich folk may wring their hands,and lament the plight of the poor and wretched,but for GOD's sakes! they don't want to actually SEE them!

so a police officer can do all the mental gymnastics they want in order to justify their place in society,but at the end of the day,they serve the elites.

and they always have.

No, it wasn't. I said AN argument followed. If you want to be niggling, be correct. Arguments came before AND after. (Edit:ok, looking back, I did say "the argument followed" my mistake here, but not there, argument did follow. I did not intend that to mean the ONLY argument followed, just that one did.)

"He said it was a Muslim ban"is pretty understandable to me....as is "it is a Muslim ban". Is that somehow not coherent to you?

Whether you voted for him or not, whether you intend it or not, whether you like him or not, by defending this Trump (non) apologist and denying those statements are an argument against the claim that there's no Muslim ban, you are at least tacitly supporting Trump who's making the same argument in court, that argument being that his calling for and promising a Muslim ban in the campaign and now saying the travel ban is "keeping his campaign promises" in no way make it a Muslim ban (unless you are a room of far right leaners).

"Cogent" depends largely on the listener.

That's the claim, that he offered no argument.

I only addressed that point, when argument was offered, because you seemingly myopicly targeted what you thought was a mistake that made your point.

If I understood it and found it convincing, it's cogent....and I do.

I finally agree with something you said...in part....Jim Jefferies is a loud mouthed verbally aggressive comedian.
But, I think "He (Trump) called it a Muslim ban." is a cogent, coherent, and concise argument. Edit:so do the lawyers suing to stop the ban. ;-)

I watched it when it aired, the whole thing.
I'm not desperate, nor do I care a whit about Jim, I don't like him, he's as much an ass as Morgan, I care that a good argument against bullshit isn't discarded because you can't or won't grasp it. I never claimed he made the argument well, or that he didn't ramble, just that he offered an argument, it made sense, and it is applicable.

I don't recall who invoked Hitler first, but if I remember correctly, they both did in the full show. Since Jefferies came out later, it was probably Morgan before Jefferies made his appearance, but I can't be sure.

And PS- I hate Clinton almost as much as Trump. I supported Sanders, the only honest person that ran.

Lol. That's the funniest shit I've read all day.

Your and my definition of destroy must be very different.

It was YOUR contention that any argument "followed" rather than preceded. If you don't want to be held to a claim, don't make it. Funny, that's the same as any good atheist would argue.

I wrote "any coherent arguments". I was quite specific. His "arguments" are a rambling stream of consciousness with a few statements that don't support any ideas to form a coherent argument.

Now here's where you fucked up big time: "you Trump supporters". Get ready to eat a bag of dicks because you got that wrong. I'm not. Buy them here https://www.amazon.com/Bag-Of-Dicks-Sent-Anonymously/dp/B01GKEUY1Y

"when given a cogent argument" bwhahahahahaaha. Yeah, he's not cogent.

"against your claims" bwahahahaahahaa. What claims did I make (besides Jim Jefferies not presenting an argument)?

" you consistently ignore it to focus on some insignificant, off topic bullshit, like "That proceeded-not followed-"Fuck off"" Bwhahahahahaa. This doesn't cover your mistake. You made a claim. I held you to it and pointed out that even if I didn't hold you to it you'd still fail. You're the one focusing on that point.

"when cogent arguments both preceded and followed the excellent retort to his utter bullshit." Bwhahahaahahaa. Except they didn't. You can say it's a cogent argument but that doesn't make it true. FFS I provided the transcript - it's right above - with no coherent/cogent arguments in it. I'll give the concession here that your standard for cogent/coherent may be lower than mine. "the excellent retort" is not excellent. It's a great example of someone with not much to say. It's verbal diarrhoea of someone who can't immediately think of a good retort.

Get over it mate. Jim Jefferies is a loud mouthed verbally aggressive comedian who doesn't present any good arguments in this discourse. He's great at shutting down his opponents by cutting them off with vitriol and bullshit but that's about it.

Oh, and Piers Morgan is a dick. Lol, how handy, you can add him to the bag your eating.

This segment is so short that unless you go and watch the whole thing (which I haven't) you're basically making an educated guess about what they're even arguing about.

I don't know why you're so desperate for Jim to be right. Every argument against Trump and his policies is not automatically cogent, coherent, correct, etc., even if one hates him.

Lastly, Godwin's law. He loses.

PS - This is getting boring. Unless you can assure me that you're non-partisan, and follow through with it in your arguments, I'm not willing to further discuss this with a proverbial pigeon.

So... what is @Mordhaus passive-aggressively trying to tell us?

Umm. By far the biggest reason for the shift is the specialization factor, mainly spurred by NOT playing both sides of the ball (offense and defense). Which to be fair, the video did point out.

The video didn't come right out and directly say that was a bad thing, but heavily implied it. I disagree, and think that it is one of the coolest things about American Football. Different positions require (or at least reward) different skillsets and physical attributes. So at the highest level of play, yes, O linemen are going to be huge and stable on their feet. D linemen are going to be slightly less huge, but faster and more aggressive. D backs and receivers are going to be tall and fast. Running backs can excel by being smallish, elusive, and quick, OR large and resilient. And so on.

That specialization makes the game fascinating -- seeing how teams with different balances of specialists can compete with each other and be more or less effective in different situations or against different teams.

Are NFL linemen going to be more at-risk for conditions like heart disease? Of course -- any sample group made up of people that weigh as much as NFL linemen is going to have greater occurrence of heart disease. But that isn't something unique to football players / the NFL. In fact, if you compared rates of heart disease in current / former NFL linemen to a sample group with the same average weight who were NOT football players, they'd probably have a lower rate, because like the video said, those linemen generally still had to be in very good physical shape -- just heavy.

I guess what I'm saying is that it seems weird to insinuate that it is a bad thing for the NFL / football in general to "encourage" health issues directly or indirectly because they select for large / huge players. If you want to point out unique risks of playing in the NFL, there are way more pressing and direct issues -- like RBs having LOTS of mobility problems after they retire due to all the bone / joint damage from getting tackled all the time, or increased risk of chemical dependency in football players in general due to all of the pain and other meds that teams pump into players to keep them going.