The WOKE Thread (Merged from WTF?)

[arg]

23 minutes ago, HeloDude said:

I asked you a simple yes or no question...and yet you couldn’t even answer without getting emotional. 

 

 

He's going to accuse you of quibbling.

[FLEA]

 

"Bumble Cofounder Becomes World’s Youngest Self-Made Woman Billionaire, Thanks To IPO"

https://www.forbes.com/sites/angelauyeung/2021/02/11/bumble-founder-whitney-wolfe-herds-fortune-rockets-past-1-billion-as-dating-app-goes-public/

This actually doesn't bother me. Except that it seems to directly conflict with this: 

"Kylie Jenner is still the youngest self-made billionaire in the world"

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/chasewithorn/2020/04/07/kylie-jenner-is-still-the-youngest-self-made-billionaire-in-the-world/amp/

 

So how does a 31 year old set the record for being youngest self made female billionaire when a 22 year old did it last year? Or does she identify as 21? 

I know this isn't specifically "woke" discussion but it seems like we are just double handing out achievements now to make news. Maybe someone can explain this to me? 

Edited February 13, 2021 by FLEA

[brabus]

8 hours ago, Homestar said:

I couldn’t tell you the brand of syrup in my cupboard. What, you going to spring some gotcha “you’re racist” bs?

If you care what some company out there calls it’s maple syrup I submit that you have too much to worry about. 

He’s probably more interested in whether you like dog shit fake syrup or not...says a lot about a man’s character!

[Homestar]

10 hours ago, HeloDude said:

I asked you a simple yes or no question...and yet you couldn’t even answer without getting emotional. 

 

 

It’s a stupid question. Have I had Aunt Jamima? Probably. Have I bought it? Maybe? So what? Go with racist gotcha now. 

[brabus]

You spelled her name wrong...racist. 

[HeloDude]

44 minutes ago, Homestar said:

It’s a stupid question. Have I had Aunt Jamima? Probably. Have I bought it? Maybe? So what? Go with racist gotcha now. 

So you consider something racist (or as you said, “possibly racist”), and yet you never stopped to check if what you were intentionally purchasing was furthering a racist message or not?  In one post you say you care (ie “possibly racist”), and in another post you say you don’t care.  So which is it?

 

[Homestar]

53 minutes ago, HeloDude said:

So you consider something racist (or as you said, “possibly racist”), and yet you never stopped to check if what you were intentionally purchasing was furthering a racist message or not?  In one post you say you care (ie “possibly racist”), and in another post you say you don’t care.  So which is it?

 

Like I said. Clown question bro. 

[Homestar]

Let me make this easy for all of you:

1) I don’t consider the brand label racist. 
 

1) I don’t care if someone else does and the company decides to change it. 
 

It’s maple syrup. Jesus. 

[HeloDude]

43 minutes ago, Homestar said:

Let me make this easy for all of you:

1) I don’t consider the brand label racist. 
 

1) I don’t care if someone else does and the company decides to change it. 
 

It’s maple syrup. Jesus. 

So then why did you originally say it’s “possibly racist” if you now don’t consider it racist?

[Homestar]

36 minutes ago, HeloDude said:

So then why did you originally say it’s “possibly racist” if you now don’t consider it racist?

Some might “possibly” consider it racist. 
 

Man, bops.net really is just Twitter for AF officers  

 

[HeloDude]

1 minute ago, Homestar said:

Some might “possibly” consider it racist. 
 

Man, bops.net really is just Twitter for AF officers  

 

But you think they’re wrong, right?  Since you said it’s not racist...

[Buddy Spike]

20 hours ago, Negatory said:

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/martin-gugino-buffalo-police-charges-dismissed_n_60269ba1c5b6d667582c4804

This is absurd and part of why aspects of the BLM protests were totally legitimate. I mean. It's on video for god's sake.

Police should not be allowed to inflict grievous bodily harm whenever they want to without being held accountable. Cases like these show that reform is absolutely warranted and needed. And what should people do when the system doesn't change and protects itself?

No, it is not why they were "totally legitimate."  The dude was a known agitator who approached police and ignored verbal commands to get back (after curfew).  Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.  I guess it does have that in common with the BLM protests.  100% of those "victims" would be alive today had they complied peacefully.

 

[pawnman]

28 minutes ago, Buddy Spike said:

No, it is not why they were "totally legitimate."  The dude was a known agitator who approached police and ignored verbal commands to get back (after curfew).  Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.  I guess it does have that in common with the BLM protests.  100% of those "victims" would be alive today had they complied peacefully.

 

So...you're OK with the idea that saying things to police, unarmed, is met with enough force to put you in the hospital? 

Because I'm not ok with that.  "Known agitator"? Maybe after the thin blue line folks did what they always do and dig up all the dirt on the victim that they can.  I'd bet my next paycheck the cops who assaulted an elderly man on video had no idea who he was.

One has to wonder why the military is capable of showing more concern for ROE in more dangerous situations than police are able to show for fellow Americans. 

Edited February 13, 2021 by pawnman

[FLEA]

1 hour ago, pawnman said:

So...you're OK with the idea that saying things to police, unarmed, is met with enough force to put you in the hospital? 

Because I'm not ok with that.  "Known agitator"? Maybe after the thin blue line folks did what they always do and dig up all the dirt on the victim that they can.  I'd bet my next paycheck the cops who assaulted an elderly man on video had no idea who he was.

One has to wonder why the military is capable of showing more concern for ROE in more dangerous situations than police are able to show for fellow Americans. 

Uhhhh ok? You are comparing apples.to oranges right now. What grounds or data do you have to make any of the above assumptions? Is flying a plane more dangerous than entering a domestic violence scene (definitely no). Did those at Haditha exercise good ROE judgement? (no) Do law enforcement officers have the same legal and moral obligations to risk their life as uniformed military members (also no). 

Honestly man, if you're not an expert on how the law enforcement community calculates, and mitigates risk, and how they apply a completely different use of force spectrum, you probably should just refrain from comment. I know enough about the career field to know they are completely incomparable. 

 

[Buddy Spike]

3 hours ago, pawnman said:

So...you're OK with the idea that saying things to police, unarmed, is met with enough force to put you in the hospital? 

Because I'm not ok with that.  "Known agitator"? Maybe after the thin blue line folks did what they always do and dig up all the dirt on the victim that they can.  I'd bet my next paycheck the cops who assaulted an elderly man on video had no idea who he was.

One has to wonder why the military is capable of showing more concern for ROE in more dangerous situations than police are able to show for fellow Americans. 

 

I'm saying that approaching police there for crowd control while they're yelling loud verbal commands to get back, refusing that order, and putting your hands on them is grounds for exactly what happened.  Ask, tell, make. He had plenty of opportunities to walk away.

The guy was ANTIFA.  If he was too elderly and frail to do what he did, he should've stayed home watching Judge Judy like any other 75 year old should be doing.

 

Edited February 13, 2021 by Buddy Spike

[arg]

1 hour ago, FLEA said:

 Is flying a plane more dangerous than entering a domestic violence scene (definitely no).

 

 

You haven't seen the planes I flew on have you.😃

[di1630]

So...you're OK with the idea that saying things to police, unarmed, is met with enough force to put you in the hospital? 
Because I'm not ok with that.  "Known agitator"? Maybe after the thin blue line folks did what they always do and dig up all the dirt on the victim that they can.  I'd bet my next paycheck the cops who assaulted an elderly man on video had no idea who he was.

That old guy probably figured using his age as and excuse he could disobey orders, start touching the police (you libtards would be screaming assault if tables were turned).

Police didn’t use excessive force...he couldn’t handle a small shove and it’s plausible he over acted and self-injured himself in the process.

Stay at home old man!! Didn’t his leftist friends tell him if the police weren’t going to get him, the virus would.

Root cause....stupidity.




Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

[jice]

5 hours ago, FLEA said:

 

Honestly man, if you're not an expert on how the law enforcement community calculates, and mitigates risk, and how they apply a completely different use of force spectrum, you probably should just refrain from comment. I know enough about the career field to know they are completely incomparable. 

 

Very interested in this. I’m not an expert, and from the cheap seats it is definitely striking that the standard in court as I understand Graham (not an expert or lawyer) is narrowly constrained to the moment force was used. There seems to be lots of room for failures leading up to that moment, which is troubling when we’re talking about American citizens. What do you recommend I read? What insight would you be willing to share?  
 

I’m not willing to go as far as to say that an officer must be right IN FACT when using deadly force, else face murder charges, but  as [I understand] it stands right now they can be very very wrong and not pay for their mistake in the same way that an armed citizen would.  Help me understand what I don’t know. 

[Buddy Spike]

10 hours ago, jice said:

Very interested in this. I’m not an expert, and from the cheap seats it is definitely striking that the standard in court as I understand Graham (not an expert or lawyer) is narrowly constrained to the moment force was used. There seems to be lots of room for failures leading up to that moment, which is troubling when we’re talking about American citizens. What do you recommend I read? What insight would you be willing to share?  
 

I’m not willing to go as far as to say that an officer must be right IN FACT when using deadly force, else face murder charges, but  as [I understand] it stands right now they can be very very wrong and not pay for their mistake in the same way that an armed citizen would.  Help me understand what I don’t know. 

What state do you live in that the use of deadly force laws are different for law enforcement?

[pawnman]

14 hours ago, di1630 said:

That old guy probably figured using his age as and excuse he could disobey orders, start touching the police (you libtards would be screaming assault if tables were turned).

Police didn’t use excessive force...he couldn’t handle a small shove and it’s plausible he over acted and self-injured himself in the process.

Stay at home old man!! Didn’t his leftist friends tell him if the police weren’t going to get him, the virus would.

Root cause....stupidity.




Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

Oh, good.  Now I'm a libtard for believing police should be held accountable for their actions.

Edited February 14, 2021 by pawnman

[pawnman]

38 minutes ago, Buddy Spike said:

What state do you live in that the use of deadly force laws are different for law enforcement?

Seen a lot of practical examples in a lot of states.  Couldn't tell you what the law as written says in every state.  I can tell you it is very rare for police to be put on trial, and even more rare for a conviction. And even if they are fired from one police department, they get hired at a neighboring police department a couple months later.

[Buddy Spike]

14 minutes ago, pawnman said:

Seen a lot of practical examples in a lot of states.  Couldn't tell you what the law as written says in every state.  I can tell you it is very rare for police to be put on trial, and even more rare for a conviction. And even if they are fired from one police department, they get hired at a neighboring police department a couple months later.

I can't speak for other states, but in my state (Louisiana) there is only one justifiable homicide law.  And it applies to everyone.

Obviously law enforcement use of force is not a binary issue and there's plenty of case law you can go through if you want to get smart on it (Graham v Connor was mentioned above, but also Tennessee v Garner, Color of Law, etc.). 

[pawnman]

22 minutes ago, Buddy Spike said:

I can't speak for other states, but in my state (Louisiana) there is only one justifiable homicide law.  And it applies to everyone.

Obviously law enforcement use of force is not a binary issue and there's plenty of case law you can go through if you want to get smart on it (Graham v Connor was mentioned above, but also Tennessee v Garner, Color of Law, etc.). 

When was the last time an officer was convicted of killing someone?

[Buddy Spike]

1 minute ago, pawnman said:

When was the last time an officer was convicted of killing someone?

First of all, that assumes most shootings are not justified, which is false.

Second, the fact that you don't know it doesn't make it so.  Derrick Stafford (Shooting of Jeremy Mardis) and Michael Slager (Walter Scott shooting) immediately come to mind.  The latter involving a lot more gray area.  

[FLEA]

6 minutes ago, pawnman said:

When was the last time an officer was convicted of killing someone?

35 officers between 2005 and 2020 were found guilty of manslaughter or higher for a duty involved shooting.