If the same standard applies, then yes, you are saying you expect a lone BLM activist at a clan rally to be treated better...because this treatment is unacceptable in your opinion.

His speech, or at least the speech he's defending, has been used to exactly that effect publicly and repeatedly in recent past, maybe just seconds earlier we don't know, so now it seems you've come around to my side. Am I wrong?

No, I never heard of this before this video, I have no other info, nor have I independently verified what I found. That said, a gallery that repeatedly hosts Nazis and white power speakers, surely bringing with them crowds of Nazis and white power groups into a neighborhood IS acting as a neo Nazi hq, at least during those multiple events.

I think if the gallery wasn't in a residential neighborhood but in the country, the "wrong think" would be fine, it's that they repeatedly turn the neighborhood into a race war zone by holding what amounts to white power rallies people would be outraged by, imo...but I'm not British, I can imagine they think worse about Nazis than Americans do and might be less tolerant.

I don't disagree that the gallery may have intended to just be an open space available to anyone, but what they became was a beacon to Nazis and racists, a safe place to hold rallies and events in a neighborhood that clearly doesn't want them. A place from which to provoke. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
When they saw how angry their neighbors were at the groups they brought to the neighborhood they should have changed how they operate, or where, but seemingly didn't.


So, while the gallery may not be specifically a Nazi HQ, by hosting the speakers and groups it does, it supports their ideologies and facilitated spreading their message by offering them a platform. That makes them complicit, intentionally so after the first protest when they were put on notice the neighbors are outraged.

I find the argument that a good apple shouldn't even be in the policing business (i.e. guilt by association) problematic. My argument would be: If I'm a good apple, I'd be all for reforming and fumigating out all the bad apples! Bad apples don't deserve to tarnish my good reputation nor my silence (i.e. as good as complicity), ESPECIALLY since there are -- ahem -- "only 0.01%" of them in the force! Isn't that the logical and moral sentiment?

My concern about focusing the debate on the ratio of "Good apples vs. bad apples" is that it's fraught with pitfalls. Without "big data" (because the System won't ever allows such transparency), that "ratio" is subjective. It's just an excuse for politicians and legislators to wiggle out doing anything.

The argument should be that a fair, just and functioning society should punish each and every bad apples to protect the good apples and its citizens. We shouldn't tolerate any bad apples, no matter the "ratio"... police depts & judges SHOULD be exemplary in their knowledge and adherent to the law, NOT the other way around. How else should a people trust its government?

Besides, if what they say is true -- that the "bad apples are few and far between" -- there shouldn't be much consequence to prosecute them all right? It must be worth reforming to salvage the far-to-damaged reputation right? It would be a moral booster for BOTH the police & community IMO.

Local politicians create the Law. PD is obligated to enforce it. on 1 - 10 he seemed about a 1 or 2. They should have taken him home and fined him a token amount (50 bucks ). However Law states ZERO tolerance which led to this sad situation.

Change the law so cops can have more discretion.

Guess MADD has a lot to do with current laws.

A good, even *quality idea....for 40+ years ago.

It took 100+ years to mortally wound the ocean by 1000 cuts. A bandaid on one wound is not going to turn it around, and we almost certainly aren't going to do it anyway. Countries that don't buy into the plan will simply harvest most of the fish left by those who do. This only works in small scale preserves that are guarded against poaching, often by a military.

Fish stocks are disappearing at an alarming rate, many going extinct. For those species, it's too late, and they are numerous, and they are largely the fish humans prefer. Many others are in such decline fishing for them is already off limits or severely curtailed, like commercial salmon, abalone, and crab fishing in California. Even those actions have failed to revive their populations year after year.

Diatoms, phytoplankton, and other similar biotas are at the limit of acidity and temperature they can tolerate, and they are the base of the ocean food web, feeding most fish when they are fry or larvae. The gasses in the atmosphere today will push diatoms over that precipice with a massive ocean extinction following soon afterwards, and we continue to add more greenhouse gases than we added yesterday every day.

Then there's habitat loss, coral reefs and kelp forests are both being decimated by temperature rise and acidification. Together they are food and habitat for 25%-50% of all ocean fish and shellfish.

Less over harvesting of the ocean is a good idea, but pretending it alone can save the oceans is pure fantasy. The ocean has absorbed as much as 90+% of the excess heat from global warming, causing oceanic heat waves that destroy habitats both directly and indirectly. There is NO plan that solves that problem, it's well beyond our capabilities under the best conditions with worldwide maximum efforts.

Just sayin'.

No its not, if you reduce the problem to one hysterical angry spoilt entitled rich white kid it becomes really simple.

The complicated part is that for some people her hysterical delivery is somehow more trustworthy than.. Than what? Where do people get information these days? A wikipedia article perhaps?

Maybe I am slightly coming around to tolerating Grreta if her act gets more people interested in the problems that lie ahead. I will still avoid her if possible.

Diatoms, and other phytoplankton, are incredibly sensitive to ocean PH and CO2 levels. This can be another feedback loop already in action.
As fewer diatoms photosynthesize, more CO2 goes unused, raising the concentration, lowering the numbers and health of phytoplankton, allowing more CO2 to go unused, raising the concentration, .....
Every molecule of CO2 added to ocean systems removes one molecule of carbonate, which is necessary for the uptake of iron among other processes. By 2100, surface carbonate is expected to decrease by up to 50%. That may well be below the levels diatoms can tolerate.

https://scripps.ucsd.edu/news/key-biological-mechanism-disrupted-ocean-acidification

If phytoplankton goes, so does the food web. They are the base. If the ocean food web collapses, eventually the bacteria that eat dead sea life will create huge clouds of hydrogen sulfide that cover the land, poisoning any still living organisms there. This has happened before, but on a much longer timescale, with near life ending results for earth.

Hydrogen Sulfide, Not Carbon Dioxide, May Have Caused Largest Mass Extinction. ... "During the end-Permian extinction 95 percent of all species (and >98% of all biomass) on Earth became extinct, compared to only 75 percent during the KT when the dinosaurs disappeared,"

A better title might be "diatoms, the tiny glass shards that support all life on earth, are struggling".

Kinda gonna disagree with you here.

I like sorting nuts by nuttiness. I expect murder rates to follow from the combination of nuttiness and number of members. I'm not aware of murders out of the Westboro Baptists(yet at least). Plenty of murderers though have claimed generic christianity though. I still class Westboro as less tolerable than generic christianity.

Going back to the video, this crowd is pretty far over on the nutcase scale.

Nutty as a squirrels shit...
...and yet, curiously, not out mass-murdering anyone. Bob's camp can't make that claim.

So I'll tolerate the nutcases on the extreme left over the nutcases on the extreme right any day.

I'm all for immigration. Can someone please explain to me why flaunting the rules of the state regarding who can and cannot enter and stay in the country is a positive thing? I understand that the proper process to promote my "more is better" viewpoint on immigration - petitioning my representatives, organizing politically, running for office, etc. - is slow, difficult, maybe broken. But isn't this democracy? Aren't we giving up on a representative democracy when we promote not just the tolerance of, but defense and support of, illegal actions? Isn't the right way, even if it's the hard way, changing the laws?

So, because one guy, Noah, sucked hard as a proselytizer, God murdered everyone else?
It must have been his failing since his message was so true and undeniable, yet it was denied and ignored, right? Why not just kill him and prove the message by miracle? Better, why not make everyone KNOW, not guess or believe, he exists and go from there. Using unverified middle men to spread your message is just plain stupid when you don't have to, and downright evil when you then torture those who don't accept it from those con men.

Like I said, complete incessant obedient subservience and worship of himself and his son under threat of eternal torture for any found lacking. That's narcissistic insecurity with absolute power, not love. Edit:part of love is accepting or at least tolerating disagreement, even disagreeable behaviour, and murdering people you find unsavory is not tolerance, sending them to hell is far closer to hate than love.
You don't threaten people into "loving" you out of love. (and worshiping out of fear isn't love)
You don't murder millions because you love them, even when they're being naughty.

I believe in a guy named Jesus, he could walk on water when it freezes, and turn water into wine using his vineyard, but his mom was no virgin and his dad was a human being. Am I good?

Some cultures perpetuate a high level of tolerance.

Blaming Mountain Dew drinkers as radicals.
Brilliant logic buddy.


Nope. We have folks that believe in the Constitution and see it being ignored by 1/2 people and the Democratic party is right there trying to tear it down. Flaws and all, this is still the greatest country in the world and your side wants to destroy it.

So when 1 proud American snaps, Its understandable, not tolerable and they should be punished.

When your side steps out, all is OK. They are advancing the cause. No punishment should be taken.

Yes, widespread poverty, largely because of insane wealth inequality. (I'll elaborate if you wish) The rich had plenty to eat, and as the dismissive "let them eat cake" implied, had no concern for those who didn't. It was that disparity paired with the dismissal of the peasants plight by the ruling class that tipped a bad situation into civil war/revolt, imo.

Yes, poor are going hungry in the United States, maybe not starving to death often, but suffering to death from ailments caused by the only diets they can afford, which barely qualify as food. No, it's not to the extent of 1700 France, but we wouldn't tolerate anywhere near those conditions today, so that argument is ludicrous.

The real poor in America don't have roofs or electricity, where are these TV'S they're parked in front of exactly? The homeless problem is growing exponentially...those are the real poor surfs in this analogy, not just people like me who can live fine on $15k a year.

11 years of trying fact, reason, logic, religion, history......all to no avail, and seeing his positions consistently change based on who we are discussing (e.g.. the debt under Obama was 100% Obama's fault, was a disgrace we shouldn't tolerate and should run him out of office for, but under Trump doubling or tripling the deficit, raising spending and cutting taxes, doesn't matter a whit and is somehow Obama's fault).
I'm prepared to take the <1% chance that I'm wrong and say "yes", he is a Russian agent....I'm just not 100% certain he knows it. I am 100% certain he wouldn't admit it if he did.