x
Click to expand

Deeticky

Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Date Signed Up:3/29/2010
Last Login:4/18/2015
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#12275
Highest Content Rank:#4157
Highest Comment Rank:#416
Content Thumbs: 2400 total,  2750 ,  350
Comment Thumbs: 8711 total,  9821 ,  1110
Content Level Progress: 96% (96/100)
Level 123 Content: Respected Member Of Famiry → Level 124 Content: Respected Member Of Famiry
Comment Level Progress: 21% (21/100)
Level 285 Comments: More Thumbs Than A Hiroshima Survivor → Level 286 Comments: More Thumbs Than A Hiroshima Survivor
Subscribers:0
Content Views:109520
Times Content Favorited:164 times
Total Comments Made:2350
FJ Points:852
Favorite Tags: lol (8) | troll (5) | chan (3) | Four (3) | anonymous (2) | black (2) | Christianity (2) | comic (2) | forever (2) | murder (2)

latest user's comments

#189 - Are you feeling ok? I can't really tell because I can't hear y… 04/08/2015 on Maybe they're coming around... 0
#31 - God, this site has become **** ...I miss the days when F…  [+] (4 new replies) 04/07/2015 on NOW She's Perfect 0
#50 - anonymous (04/07/2015) [-]
the site never really changed until about a year ago when it started becoming completely obsessed with being a bunch of self righteous retards who repost a bunch of crap about feminists but other than that literally nothing has changed
#78 - xxmemosxx (04/07/2015) [-]
#43 - theruinedsage (04/07/2015) [-]
Welcome to /pol2.0/
#42 - anonymous (04/07/2015) [-]
I think you might have made a simple mistake, FunnyJunk was never tumblr.
#30 - Comment deleted 04/07/2015 on NOW She's Perfect 0
#187 - Again, you're making a broad, sweeping generalization ("f…  [+] (2 new replies) 04/07/2015 on Maybe they're coming around... 0
User avatar #188 - eight (04/07/2015) [-]
"Again, you're making a broad, sweeping generalization ("from the second a feminist opens their mouth" insinuating that all feminists are the same)."

I demonstrated why this is the case. I'll briefly restate it, feminism is entirely unnecessary as a movement. If this is indeed the case, then anyone that claims to be a feminist, by association falls into the same problem, because as it being unnecessary, they are joining the movement for a specific reason.

"You said you don't care, which worries me, since it says to me that you're not open to other ideas. I think that's a little dangerous. "

I said I do not care about being blunt. That has nothing to do with being open or closed to other ideas, that has to do with not caring about sugar coating the truth to avoid hurting peoples feelings. In other words, I do not care if I offend anyone, because it must be said even at the expense of looking like an asshole. I can live with that, because these issues are far more important than anyone's hurt ego. They'll get over it.
Way to take that out of context and write your own narrative.

"Anyway, very few feminists believe that women should be given more rights than men."

Thus rendering the feminism movement pointless. There's no need to favor feminism over the general equal rights movement. The latter accomplishes more anyway. One popular movement are the Humanists that do this very thing.

"ust because some of the loudest feminists on the internet say that, doesn't mean it's the majority opinion. Just because they are choosing to fight for equal rights for women, does not mean that they do not believe in equal rights for all people."

Again, singling out feminism is unnecessary when the same thing can be accomplished elsewhere.

"All equal rights movements in the past focus on one specific group (Blacks had/have their movement, Latinos had/have theirs, Asians had/have theirs, women have/had theirs, etc.) "

I suspected this, but now it's clear you did not read my comment and or did not comprehend it very well. I am talking about the present. I specifically pointed out that the feminism movement is no longer necessary and hasn't been needed for decades, thus implying that there once was a time where it was necessary, but we've progressed to an acceptable, albeit not perfect point in equal rights. There's room for improvement, but it's not dire and it hasn't been for some time. If things were never to progress from this point, women would still get on just fine with very little complaint. They already do.

"People have a hard time focusing on equal rights for the entire human population, so they focus on one group at a time, with the eventual goal of equal rights for all. "

It's really not that difficult when you consider people equally and not separate by cultural, racial or ethnic differences. When you treat them as the human beings that they are, it''s a hell of a lot more easy.

As for what the current feminism movement: You're a fool if you claim it hasn't been hijacked by the extremists. You acknowledge that it's the loudest of the feminists that get attention, well that's really all that matters, isn't it? They are the ones representing the movement in the same way that terrorists are the ones representing Islam. Obviously not every single "feminist" or every single "Muslim" is an extremist. How naive can you be to assume that anybody means that in the literal sense?

Regardless, if the loudest is what's representing the movement, then the movement should be criticized by that representation. There's clearly something wrong with the feminism movement in the same way there is something wrong with Islam. Until it's corrected, if ever, anybody who disagrees with that representation should disown and condemn it if they can't manage to speak louder than the extremists. It's that simple, especially when there are far more efficient alternatives, like Humanism.

User avatar #189 - Deeticky (04/08/2015) [-]
Are you feeling ok? I can't really tell because I can't hear your tone or see your body language, but I sensed more hostility from you in this comment than I had in your previous comments (accusing me of not reading your comment, calling me a "fool", calling me "naive", etc). I am not trying to accuse you of anything, I'm just wondering how you're feeling. You seem like an intelligent person, and I am hoping that we can have a civil discussion without any ill-will, and perhaps even learn from each other.

To your first point, I have not seen you provide any evidence that feminism is now "unnecessary" as a movement. In fact, in many countries, women's rights are abysmal. Though we have not specified it, I will assume that we are talking about feminism specifically in the USA. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Though there are many reasons why I view the feminism movement as still having merit/value, I will list just a few here.

1: Women's access to safe abortions and birth-control medication is being dismantled in many states where the Christian Right has political control.
2: "slut-shaming." While I personally do not believe that overt sexual promiscuity is appropriate, women are by and large far more likely to be punished by society for promiscuity than men are. Furthermore, a decent number of police departments are still failing to properly investigate rape cases, the victims of which are far more likely to be women than men.
3: Wage inequality (i.e. women not receiving equal pay for equal work).

To your second point, it looks like I misunderstood what you were trying to say when you said "I don't care." I apologize for that. I promise you that I was not trying to create my own narrative. Thank you for clarifying what you had meant.

To your third and fourth points, I like that you brought up humanism. I think that it is a wonderful movement. I do not think that feminism and humanism are mutually exclusive. I consider myself a feminist as well as a secular humanist. Feminism chooses simply to focus on women's issues. I think that having a focus is very important when it comes to public policy. After all, a legislator cannot simply introduce a bill that says "everybody is equal" and then call it a night. Instead, laws have to generally address specific issues one by one. In addition, there are some issues that affect men and women in different ways (abortion and birth control are a good example of this). Because of that fact, policies have to address an issue's effect on women separately from its effect on men, which means that a truly "equal" policy may not be an appropriate response.

To your fifth point, I promise you that I did read your comment (multiple times). It is very possible that I misread your comment. It's very easy to misunderstand people on the internet (again, I have no tone or body language to help me). That's why it's a good thing that you can reply and clarify. Also, you say the point we're at now in equal rights is "acceptable, albeit not perfect." The problem is that it's impossible for any one person to truly define what an "acceptable" level of equal rights is. You say that women get along fine with very little complaint, yet the feminism movement has a large number of adherents, so I would say that they actually are complaining quite a bit.

To your sixth point, yes, if everybody treated everybody else fairly, the world would be a better place. Unfortunately, that's not the case. One of the biggest barriers in achieving this is the fact that "fair" means different things to different people.

To your seventh and eighth points, I disagree. I do not think movements are defined by their loudest members. If that were the case, then Muslims would be defined by ISIS, feminists would be defined by man-haters, Christians would be defined by the Westboro Baptist Church, etc. If feminism has indeed been hijacked, then there's absolutely no reason for the "good" feminists to not fight for their title back.

#163 - Perhaps try and bring the term feminism to once again mean a m… 04/04/2015 on Maybe they're coming around... +1
#162 - I'd be careful if I were you. You're making a broad, generaliz…  [+] (4 new replies) 04/04/2015 on Maybe they're coming around... 0
User avatar #176 - eight (04/05/2015) [-]
There are no good reasons to single out women anymore. Haven't been strong enough reasons for decades. Now it's just a matter of equality among all classes. To say that women are more deserving than any other class to warrant their own movement at this point is an insult. Supporting equal rights covers womens rights.

But when you support feminism it's basically an acknowledgement that you support womens rights over or before the rights of others. Feminism is entirely unnecessary. If feminists truly cared about equal rights, they wouldn't be calling themselves feminists.

It might be a blunt opinion, I don't really care. It's an honest opinion and an observation that still continues to be proven true from the second a feminist opens their mouth.
User avatar #187 - Deeticky (04/07/2015) [-]
Again, you're making a broad, sweeping generalization ("from the second a feminist opens their mouth" insinuating that all feminists are the same).

You said you don't care, which worries me, since it says to me that you're not open to other ideas. I think that's a little dangerous.

Anyway, very few feminists believe that women should be given more rights than men. Just because some of the loudest feminists on the internet say that, doesn't mean it's the majority opinion. Just because they are choosing to fight for equal rights for women, does not mean that they do not believe in equal rights for all people. All equal rights movements in the past focus on one specific group (Blacks had/have their movement, Latinos had/have theirs, Asians had/have theirs, women have/had theirs, etc.) People have a hard time focusing on equal rights for the entire human population, so they focus on one group at a time, with the eventual goal of equal rights for all.
User avatar #188 - eight (04/07/2015) [-]
"Again, you're making a broad, sweeping generalization ("from the second a feminist opens their mouth" insinuating that all feminists are the same)."

I demonstrated why this is the case. I'll briefly restate it, feminism is entirely unnecessary as a movement. If this is indeed the case, then anyone that claims to be a feminist, by association falls into the same problem, because as it being unnecessary, they are joining the movement for a specific reason.

"You said you don't care, which worries me, since it says to me that you're not open to other ideas. I think that's a little dangerous. "

I said I do not care about being blunt. That has nothing to do with being open or closed to other ideas, that has to do with not caring about sugar coating the truth to avoid hurting peoples feelings. In other words, I do not care if I offend anyone, because it must be said even at the expense of looking like an asshole. I can live with that, because these issues are far more important than anyone's hurt ego. They'll get over it.
Way to take that out of context and write your own narrative.

"Anyway, very few feminists believe that women should be given more rights than men."

Thus rendering the feminism movement pointless. There's no need to favor feminism over the general equal rights movement. The latter accomplishes more anyway. One popular movement are the Humanists that do this very thing.

"ust because some of the loudest feminists on the internet say that, doesn't mean it's the majority opinion. Just because they are choosing to fight for equal rights for women, does not mean that they do not believe in equal rights for all people."

Again, singling out feminism is unnecessary when the same thing can be accomplished elsewhere.

"All equal rights movements in the past focus on one specific group (Blacks had/have their movement, Latinos had/have theirs, Asians had/have theirs, women have/had theirs, etc.) "

I suspected this, but now it's clear you did not read my comment and or did not comprehend it very well. I am talking about the present. I specifically pointed out that the feminism movement is no longer necessary and hasn't been needed for decades, thus implying that there once was a time where it was necessary, but we've progressed to an acceptable, albeit not perfect point in equal rights. There's room for improvement, but it's not dire and it hasn't been for some time. If things were never to progress from this point, women would still get on just fine with very little complaint. They already do.

"People have a hard time focusing on equal rights for the entire human population, so they focus on one group at a time, with the eventual goal of equal rights for all. "

It's really not that difficult when you consider people equally and not separate by cultural, racial or ethnic differences. When you treat them as the human beings that they are, it''s a hell of a lot more easy.

As for what the current feminism movement: You're a fool if you claim it hasn't been hijacked by the extremists. You acknowledge that it's the loudest of the feminists that get attention, well that's really all that matters, isn't it? They are the ones representing the movement in the same way that terrorists are the ones representing Islam. Obviously not every single "feminist" or every single "Muslim" is an extremist. How naive can you be to assume that anybody means that in the literal sense?

Regardless, if the loudest is what's representing the movement, then the movement should be criticized by that representation. There's clearly something wrong with the feminism movement in the same way there is something wrong with Islam. Until it's corrected, if ever, anybody who disagrees with that representation should disown and condemn it if they can't manage to speak louder than the extremists. It's that simple, especially when there are far more efficient alternatives, like Humanism.

User avatar #189 - Deeticky (04/08/2015) [-]
Are you feeling ok? I can't really tell because I can't hear your tone or see your body language, but I sensed more hostility from you in this comment than I had in your previous comments (accusing me of not reading your comment, calling me a "fool", calling me "naive", etc). I am not trying to accuse you of anything, I'm just wondering how you're feeling. You seem like an intelligent person, and I am hoping that we can have a civil discussion without any ill-will, and perhaps even learn from each other.

To your first point, I have not seen you provide any evidence that feminism is now "unnecessary" as a movement. In fact, in many countries, women's rights are abysmal. Though we have not specified it, I will assume that we are talking about feminism specifically in the USA. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Though there are many reasons why I view the feminism movement as still having merit/value, I will list just a few here.

1: Women's access to safe abortions and birth-control medication is being dismantled in many states where the Christian Right has political control.
2: "slut-shaming." While I personally do not believe that overt sexual promiscuity is appropriate, women are by and large far more likely to be punished by society for promiscuity than men are. Furthermore, a decent number of police departments are still failing to properly investigate rape cases, the victims of which are far more likely to be women than men.
3: Wage inequality (i.e. women not receiving equal pay for equal work).

To your second point, it looks like I misunderstood what you were trying to say when you said "I don't care." I apologize for that. I promise you that I was not trying to create my own narrative. Thank you for clarifying what you had meant.

To your third and fourth points, I like that you brought up humanism. I think that it is a wonderful movement. I do not think that feminism and humanism are mutually exclusive. I consider myself a feminist as well as a secular humanist. Feminism chooses simply to focus on women's issues. I think that having a focus is very important when it comes to public policy. After all, a legislator cannot simply introduce a bill that says "everybody is equal" and then call it a night. Instead, laws have to generally address specific issues one by one. In addition, there are some issues that affect men and women in different ways (abortion and birth control are a good example of this). Because of that fact, policies have to address an issue's effect on women separately from its effect on men, which means that a truly "equal" policy may not be an appropriate response.

To your fifth point, I promise you that I did read your comment (multiple times). It is very possible that I misread your comment. It's very easy to misunderstand people on the internet (again, I have no tone or body language to help me). That's why it's a good thing that you can reply and clarify. Also, you say the point we're at now in equal rights is "acceptable, albeit not perfect." The problem is that it's impossible for any one person to truly define what an "acceptable" level of equal rights is. You say that women get along fine with very little complaint, yet the feminism movement has a large number of adherents, so I would say that they actually are complaining quite a bit.

To your sixth point, yes, if everybody treated everybody else fairly, the world would be a better place. Unfortunately, that's not the case. One of the biggest barriers in achieving this is the fact that "fair" means different things to different people.

To your seventh and eighth points, I disagree. I do not think movements are defined by their loudest members. If that were the case, then Muslims would be defined by ISIS, feminists would be defined by man-haters, Christians would be defined by the Westboro Baptist Church, etc. If feminism has indeed been hijacked, then there's absolutely no reason for the "good" feminists to not fight for their title back.

#160 - Search for Femen, and you'll see some hot feminists. 04/04/2015 on Maybe they're coming around... 0
#159 - Agreed. Lately, it seems like a lot of people on the internet … 04/04/2015 on Maybe they're coming around... +3
#253 - Instructions unclear: Penis caught in ceiling fan.  [+] (1 new reply) 04/01/2015 on Life hacks 0
User avatar #256 - shinyarmor (04/01/2015) [-]
most likely not even by you
#387 - Here's a source if you're interested.  [+] (1 new reply) 03/31/2015 on Time to learn about China 0
#400 - kingderps (03/31/2015) [-]
Ok, so I was right, it wasn't just to "help" boost the US pop, it was for self severing reasons. The wording int eh comp made it seem like it was an act of generosity.
#169 - I respectfully disagree. Again, I think it happens on both sid…  [+] (1 new reply) 03/23/2015 on das racis 0
User avatar #173 - durkadurka (03/23/2015) [-]
I would suggest it surprise no one that the political class says and does anything it pleases.

#157 - I'm sure you've seen that people will complain without taking …  [+] (3 new replies) 03/22/2015 on das racis 0
User avatar #162 - durkadurka (03/22/2015) [-]
It's not really rewarded on the right.

If anything, the right's thing is complaining about shit the government does but then just letting it go. But you don't get points for how you feel or how compassionate you are. The philosophy doesn't allow for that, or at least doesn't reward that.

For example, someone like Al Gore is not lauded by the left for what he's done but rather for how much he cares. The guy's actions are actually rather contradictory to what he says. But it's not about his actions, it's about what he says.

User avatar #169 - Deeticky (03/23/2015) [-]
I respectfully disagree. Again, I think it happens on both sides. Take Newt Gingrich for instance, the man talks about "family values" and the "sanctity of marriage", yet he himself has had three marriages and has cheated on his spouses multiple times. This is an example of a man on the right who is being rewarded for his words instead of his actions.
User avatar #173 - durkadurka (03/23/2015) [-]
I would suggest it surprise no one that the political class says and does anything it pleases.

#156 - They're only liberals in the same way that the Westboro Baptis… 03/22/2015 on das racis +4
#97 - You've seen how skinny the models in fashion magazines are, ri… 03/22/2015 on Under 6 feet 0
#188 - There have been hundreds of hostage situations that have been … 03/18/2015 on police the fuck -1
#187 - What are you talking about? Read my comment again. I said peop… 03/18/2015 on police the fuck -1
#186 - Why do you feel the need to call me a "dumbass"? Why… 03/18/2015 on police the fuck -1
#176 - >Tamir never shot at anybody. >He never posed a…  [+] (2 new replies) 03/17/2015 on police the fuck -1
User avatar #177 - dorfdorfdorf (03/18/2015) [-]
>indeed. BUT FUCKING POINTING A PISTOL AT PEOPLE IN A PARK ISN'T A SMART IDEA.

>he was armed. how was he not a threat?

>they were told that an armed man was aiming a gun at random strangers in the park. the fuck? what other information do you need?

>where do you get your information? nearly every single report about the incident included the fact that the 911 caller said that tamir was aiming the gun at just about everyone in the park. so? what the fuck does that matter? "he was carrying around an ax and swinging it at people's heads, but he didnt hit anyone so it's ok. he din do nuffin".

you said "these cops". i referenced ferguson because it's related, dumbass. people claiming that cops are evil because of one isolated incident, with no proof.

he was indeed unarmed, but he tried to fix that. by grabbing for a cop's gun and punching him in the face. also, i didnt bring in race. "nigger" isnt solely a black person. it's like douchebag or asshole. just because you automatically think of black people when you hear "nigger" doesnt mean it's true.

Do not put words in my mouth.

Do not put words in my mouth.

just in case you can't hear DO NOT PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH.

How is open carrying threatening? There is a MAJOR difference between having a gun on your hip, and having a gun in your hand pointed at a stranger. Major. Fucking. Difference. If Tamir was an open carry activist, he would have known proper gun safety and he wouldn't have FUCKING AIMED AT PEOPLE
User avatar #186 - Deeticky (03/18/2015) [-]
Why do you feel the need to call me a "dumbass"? Why do you feel the need to use so many curse words? It seems like you're getting very, very, very angry. You do understand that, psychologically speaking, when you get angry, the logic centers in your brain shut down. I would respectfully encourage you to calm down and try to think rationally. Just because we are on the internet does not mean that we cannot be civil in our disagreement.

If I put words in your mouth, I'm sorry. I'm not really sure what you're referencing, but it has obviously made you very upset.

Yes, it was not smart of Tamir to be waving the bb gun round or to point it at people. The thing is, he was 12 years old. 12 year olds do stupid things all the time. I did stupid things when i was 12, and I'm sure you did too. Now if the police had simply taken a few extra seconds to guage the situation, to order Tamir to get on the ground, or order him to drop the weapon, or something along those lines, he would still be alive. Yes, it was stupid of him to do that, but he didn't deserve to die for it.

And also, "nigger" is a racial slur. It doesn't matter whether you thin it is or not. That's not how words work. The meaning of words is decided upon by our culture and our society, and are society is still at the consensus that "nigger" is a racial slur.
#170 - >They shot Tamir Rice within 2 seconds of arriving on the s…  [+] (4 new replies) 03/17/2015 on police the fuck 0
User avatar #174 - dorfdorfdorf (03/17/2015) [-]
>and? in the past 6 months 4 cops have been shot in the face while not in the line of duty. they have the right to not fuck around.

>except he's not old enough.

>no, but he pointed it at everyone else in the park. "oh, he's been threatening everyone in the park, but not me. i guess he isnt a threat."

>haha. hahahahahahahaha.

>refer to point 1

>they weren't told he was twelve. they were told he was a man. the fault is with the dispatch, not police.

really? these two cops, who werent given all the information, are giving others a bad name? the guy in missouri, who defended himself when he was punched in the face and had his gun almost taken away from him, is giving others a bad name?

but the four cops that got shot in the face at point blank range get no screen time?

bad cops arent giving cops a bad name. bad information is giving cops a bad name. there are retards out there who still believe that the MO nigger was shot with his hands up
User avatar #176 - Deeticky (03/17/2015) [-]
>Tamir never shot at anybody.

>He never posed a threat to the cops.

>The cops never attempted to gauge the situation, or even gather any info. They just opened fire on the kid. Doesn't matter what dispatch said, cops have a duty to use their own brains and their own judgement.

>Literally nobody has ever claimed that Tamir pointed the bb gun at "everyone in the park." There were some claims that he was pointing the gun at some people in the park. Again, Tamir never fired a shot and never verbally threatened anyone. If he committed any crime, it would have simply been disorderly conduct. Disorderly conduct is not a crime that is punishable by death.

The fact that you know about the four cops who were shot in the face proves that they got some screen time, so I don't know why you're complaining about that. If nobody cared at all about those cops, then we would not have heard about them.

Also, I don't know why you are bringing up the Ferguson case. We were talking about the Tamir Rice case. Those are two completely separate instances. The fact that you used the word "nigger" to describe the unarmed man who was shot to death by Darren Wilson worries me. Why do you choose to use that word? Why are you bringing racial slurs into this discussion we are having, which had previously not been about race?

By your logic (Tamir was reportedly "threatening" people with his bb gun, so it was therefore justifiable for the police to shoot Tamir within two seconds of arriving on the scene), shouldn't all of those "open carry activists" (They guys who bring seni-automatic rifles into restaurants and such) have also been shot within two seconds of police arriving? Because they weren't. What if Tamir was just an "open carry activist"? The police never gave him a chance to explain himself.

User avatar #177 - dorfdorfdorf (03/18/2015) [-]
>indeed. BUT FUCKING POINTING A PISTOL AT PEOPLE IN A PARK ISN'T A SMART IDEA.

>he was armed. how was he not a threat?

>they were told that an armed man was aiming a gun at random strangers in the park. the fuck? what other information do you need?

>where do you get your information? nearly every single report about the incident included the fact that the 911 caller said that tamir was aiming the gun at just about everyone in the park. so? what the fuck does that matter? "he was carrying around an ax and swinging it at people's heads, but he didnt hit anyone so it's ok. he din do nuffin".

you said "these cops". i referenced ferguson because it's related, dumbass. people claiming that cops are evil because of one isolated incident, with no proof.

he was indeed unarmed, but he tried to fix that. by grabbing for a cop's gun and punching him in the face. also, i didnt bring in race. "nigger" isnt solely a black person. it's like douchebag or asshole. just because you automatically think of black people when you hear "nigger" doesnt mean it's true.

Do not put words in my mouth.

Do not put words in my mouth.

just in case you can't hear DO NOT PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH.

How is open carrying threatening? There is a MAJOR difference between having a gun on your hip, and having a gun in your hand pointed at a stranger. Major. Fucking. Difference. If Tamir was an open carry activist, he would have known proper gun safety and he wouldn't have FUCKING AIMED AT PEOPLE
User avatar #186 - Deeticky (03/18/2015) [-]
Why do you feel the need to call me a "dumbass"? Why do you feel the need to use so many curse words? It seems like you're getting very, very, very angry. You do understand that, psychologically speaking, when you get angry, the logic centers in your brain shut down. I would respectfully encourage you to calm down and try to think rationally. Just because we are on the internet does not mean that we cannot be civil in our disagreement.

If I put words in your mouth, I'm sorry. I'm not really sure what you're referencing, but it has obviously made you very upset.

Yes, it was not smart of Tamir to be waving the bb gun round or to point it at people. The thing is, he was 12 years old. 12 year olds do stupid things all the time. I did stupid things when i was 12, and I'm sure you did too. Now if the police had simply taken a few extra seconds to guage the situation, to order Tamir to get on the ground, or order him to drop the weapon, or something along those lines, he would still be alive. Yes, it was stupid of him to do that, but he didn't deserve to die for it.

And also, "nigger" is a racial slur. It doesn't matter whether you thin it is or not. That's not how words work. The meaning of words is decided upon by our culture and our society, and are society is still at the consensus that "nigger" is a racial slur.
#169 - Of course it's wrong to kill cops. I agree with you there 100%… 03/17/2015 on police the fuck -1
#168 - Newtown police arrived on the scene at 9:39, and the final sho…  [+] (2 new replies) 03/17/2015 on police the fuck -1
User avatar #178 - dorfdorfdorf (03/18/2015) [-]
what "peaceful outcome"? when the fuck has there ever been a "peaceful outcome" in these cases?
User avatar #188 - Deeticky (03/18/2015) [-]
There have been hundreds of hostage situations that have been resolved peacefully. Why do you think that police forces employ negotiators?

Here take a look: lmgtfy.com/?q=hostage+situation+resolved+peacefully
#164 - Are you saying that a cop has never unjustifiably killed a per…  [+] (3 new replies) 03/17/2015 on police the fuck -1
User avatar #165 - elcreepo (03/17/2015) [-]
That's not what I'm trying to say. What I'm trying to say is that there needs to be a balance.

I only reference what the OP said.

The way I see it, there are corrupt cops, yes. But they are a minority. In a perfect world, all corrupt cops would see justice and in the aftermath of incidents like the Tamir Rice case the officers involved would be retrained to think gunfire before using gun, order before tazer, and rights before arrest. This isn't a perfect world though, so near 100% is all we can get. So cases will happen and get a lot of media hype over the occasional instances of bad cops/districts. BUT that's no excuse to kill a cop in an unrelated district because "all cops are corrupt"

What bothers me though is that there is such a thing as too stringint protocol, protocol that wastes time. In the Lanza case the cops didn't have time to do what they did and wait for a swat team before rushing the school. The cops needed to be in there within five minutes and they simply weren't because of fear of shooting the wrong guy. They were nearly completely useless at the scene, getting in the way of the federal investigation. They herded the wounded and traumatized, and that's about it.

The cops in my state do fuck all when it comes to gunmen because of fear of a lawsuit/public outrage.

Hell, the public flipped its shit when Boston, a neighboring state, had to go on lockdown after the bombers. That wasn't a police state, it was a necessity to ensure those fuckers didn't escape. No civilians were harmed, yes their properties were searched without a warrant, but it was under the understanding that the bombers who they didn't kill in the shootout was on the run and could be hiding anywhere and have any number of accomplices waiting to help them. There was simply no fucking time to get a warrant for every house in boston and people should not demand that.

Because when you demand cops follow stringent protocols, you make cops useless.

I like to think that nearly every time a cop has to fire his gun at a person it's out of fear for his or another's life. Yes there are corrupt bastards but they are few and far between, enough that to kill a cop who hasn't done anything to you on the grounds that he is a cop is a shitty and ignorant decision.
User avatar #169 - Deeticky (03/17/2015) [-]
Of course it's wrong to kill cops. I agree with you there 100%.

Yeah, corrupt cops are in the minority. Corruption exists on a spectrum though, so there's really no telling how many of them there are.

Here's the thing: Corrupt cops are incredibly hard to prosecute. The "blue wall of silence" means that nobody will cooperate with the prosecutor, and no matter how obvious it is that the cop is guilty, there will always be a portion of the public who will assume that the cop must be innocent.

Because it is so hard to prosecute corrupt cops, protocol is important. Protocol allows the public to keep the police force in check. Like you said, balance is important. Cops need to have enough power to do their job, but they need to also not have too much power, lest they use it to hurt innocents. protocol allows us to mitigate the chance that innocents are harmed by police.

Like I said in my reply to your other comment, I don't think there was much that the police could have done in the Lanza case. After all, there was less than a minute in between the first police arriving on the scene and the final shot being fired.

Protocol has obviously not made cops useless, because they are still tackling crime just as much as they always have, and are still (in general) not afraid to use their weapons.

Personally, I think cops should be held to higher "moral" standards, but also paid a lot better and given better mental health benefits.
User avatar #166 - elcreepo (03/17/2015) [-]
* in a neighboring state
#163 - But... A lot of people are complaining about gang violence and…  [+] (2 new replies) 03/17/2015 on police the fuck -1
User avatar #179 - dorfdorfdorf (03/18/2015) [-]
so, because no one is complaining, it isnt an issue?
User avatar #187 - Deeticky (03/18/2015) [-]
What are you talking about? Read my comment again. I said people ARE complaining about gang violence and DO want to see it stopped. Of course it's an issue!
#162 - I don't think that the Sandy Hook shooting (Adam Lanza) was an…  [+] (4 new replies) 03/17/2015 on police the fuck -1
User avatar #167 - elcreepo (03/17/2015) [-]
They could have.

There was an investigation and there were cops within five minutes of the school.

They had to get a swat team and all that shit, they had to have gun units on the scene, there were plenty of things that needed to happen first before they could enter the school which they could have chosen to ignore.

After the Brown case especially, cops have been extremely wary in my state of firing their guns, at all. And that's not good.

Several people got shot in one of the cities in my state with a cop not fifty feet away trying to talk him into putting down the gun and giving himself up. In a "gun-happy" state the gunman would have been shot down and nothing would have happened.
User avatar #168 - Deeticky (03/17/2015) [-]
Newtown police arrived on the scene at 9:39, and the final shot happened at 9:40. There really wasn't enough time there for the police to have done anything. They didn't even know where the shooter was within the building at that point.

I definitely know that the Brown case does not seem to have stopped police overall from using deadly force (justified or unjustified). I can't speak for your specific area, and I really can't speak on the case that you mentioned (since I don't know the name of it). If the cops had opened fire sooner, it could have put innocent bystander sin the way of the crossfire. There have been a lot of successful police negotiations in hostage situations. These peaceful outcomes are the best, since it allows innocent bystanders to survive.
User avatar #178 - dorfdorfdorf (03/18/2015) [-]
what "peaceful outcome"? when the fuck has there ever been a "peaceful outcome" in these cases?
User avatar #188 - Deeticky (03/18/2015) [-]
There have been hundreds of hostage situations that have been resolved peacefully. Why do you think that police forces employ negotiators?

Here take a look: lmgtfy.com/?q=hostage+situation+resolved+peacefully
#169 - I don't see why a potential assassin would not consider downin… 03/12/2015 on Air Force One 0

items

Total unique items point value: 1870 / Total items point value: 2370
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #7 - atomicman (01/17/2014) [-]
If only we got to meet each other in person. I'm sure we'd be become great friends.
#4 - traffy (01/02/2014) [-]
**traffy rolls 65**
**traffy rolls 65**
User avatar #1 - CannonFodder (10/26/2012) [-]
I hadn't been on FJ for ~ 1.5 years so I don't know what has/hasn't been done. Just couldn't be ****** studying so drew that instead. Didn't mean to annoy peeps but cheers for the feedback man
User avatar #5 to #1 - traffy (01/02/2014) [-]
you should shut the **** up
User avatar #6 to #5 - CannonFodder (01/04/2014) [-]
Lol care
 Friends (0)