781–790 of 816 posts
Did anybody read the links about the guy that is suing the same cops? http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/index.html?id=2989730 Poor guy got really messed up, has huge medical bills, and obviously filed the lawsuit himself because he has no money and can't spell. Feel way worse for that guy than the OP. If something positive can come out of this story, maybe that guy can find some help from people here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This was his point: "Voting should be independent of opinion, should it not? Voting should reflect the merit of a post regardless of its popularity, right? Comments with little more substance than "cops should die" shouldn't be at the top of a comment page, right?" Sentence by sentence just to make it easy on you: "Voting should be independent of opinion, should it not? Voting should reflect the merit of a post regar…
>What does this even mean? How on earth would this work? He's genuinely upset that voting reflects peoples opinions? I'm shocked that someone could say this and not immediately realize what a dumb thing it is to say. But yeah, this problem in his mind, will be solved by finding a different community, with opinions he likes. See the problem now? If I think that somebody has said something worth exposure, I upvote it.…
Probably the first time I've ever seen someone lament the idea that someone focused on the specific example they gave...
Anyway, I've seen this happen on reddit plenty, but I would honestly say its a distant second place to the bigger problem, which is what is happening here. Someone like you gets the idea in their head that "saying thing x is popular amongst community y". At that point, all logic goes out the window and actual, reasonable evidence is ignored at the cost of any sort of evidence that remotely confirms your hypothesis. Was the top comment of a thread something bad about cops for a few seconds? Hey, that must mean everyone here wants cops to die, which means the voting system is flawed which means I should throw a tantrum and threaten to leave the community. Like I said, I have no problem with responding to people who actually said this and discussing it, but when you start throwing tantrums about things that weren't said, there is a disconnect between a logical world where people can have conversations, and the world where youre sitting in a room by yourself mashing the keyboard and convincing yourself everyone else is stupid. I'd say you'd probably be better off letting these insane thoughts go...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Voting should be independent of opinion, should it not? Voting should reflect the merit of a post regardless of its popularity, right? If that were the case, democracy would actually work.
"Should be", not "is". The fact that there are problems with democracy doesn't mean that people shouldn't attempt to improve the system.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In Croatia you now get a 50% discount if you pay the ticket on the spot.
On the spot, like cash directly to the cop? Are you describing a bribe?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>What does this even mean? How on earth would this work? He's genuinely upset that voting reflects peoples opinions? I'm shocked that someone could say this and not immediately realize what a dumb thing it is to say. But yeah, this problem in his mind, will be solved by finding a different community, with opinions he likes. See the problem now? If I think that somebody has said something worth exposure, I upvote it.…
"You're too focused on the specifics. Shitty comments get upvoted all the time. Thoughtful but unpopular comments get downvoted all the time. Anybody who has been around these sorts of places (HN, Reddit, etc.) for more than an hour has seen it happen." Probably the first time I've ever seen someone lament the idea that someone focused on the specific example they gave... Anyway, I've seen this happen on reddit plent…
It's clear that nobody will be persuading anybody here, that we're both right in our own eyes, and this is going nowhere. I'm tired of trying to explain myself to you. I'm tired of you constantly ending your posts with (not so) clever remarks about how I'm a stupid trolling troll. I'm tired of you. You're argumentative for argumentation's sake (which is fine when you can listen to reason) and I'm really, actually, truly done with you now. Bye.
In response to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7241518 (because apparently I'm submitting posts too often):
I've clearly explained above the way that I think the voting system should work, and I'm not even close to the only person who thinks that way (see: Reddiquette). You've crossed the line from argumentative to disingenuous.
I realize that you strongly dislike me, but please don't allow that to cloud your vision when reading my posts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In Seattle, 120 strikes and you're out: http://petapixel.com/2014/02/04/police-officer-threatened-ar...
I totally understand an "allegation", not sustained, not counting as a full "strike". Only 21 were sustained, and we don't know the seriousness of those allegations. It still seems late, but I'd like to know more before being confident about that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, he called 911 himself. I think this part won't change from version to version. Now how many people who call 911 when they witness an accident actually are a "problem" enough to warrant an arrest?
Only the drunk, self-entitled assholes like OP.
And even if he was a drunk self-entitled asshole? Was he a hindrance? Was he dangerous in any way? My probability for both is extremely low. And even if he was a real hindrance or danger? Does that justify stomping on his fingers after having handcuffed him? No way.
I understand you may trust cops. But Officer Korr specifically doesn't look too trustworthy: she got sued.
Unless… the OP is actually lying. Not distorting the facts, or conveniently forgetting some details, and exaggerating others, but plain lying. That is indeed a possibility, but I'd think twice before suggesting it to the OP's face: if he wasn't lying, I'd be insulting a victim.
Apparently, you're not that cautious.
I've made a few 911 calls, but the last one was pretty surreal. My partner and I were walking past a high rise where people go to score and in front of us on the pavement we saw a man and a woman trying to wake up someone who seemed on the verge of OD. He wasn't responding, the two were frantic, and everybody was watching from the other side of the road. She was screaming at him and us, saying he is ODed, and get an…
What the fuck. Where do you live?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"You're too focused on the specifics. Shitty comments get upvoted all the time. Thoughtful but unpopular comments get downvoted all the time. Anybody who has been around these sorts of places (HN, Reddit, etc.) for more than an hour has seen it happen." Probably the first time I've ever seen someone lament the idea that someone focused on the specific example they gave... Anyway, I've seen this happen on reddit plent…
I tried coming back to you, nearly a day later, and civilly explaining myself and my position, again . Another poster has even explained my position to you (oddly enough, they have no trouble understanding the points I'm making here). Still, you have insisted on misinterpretation of my posts, picking out and making a big deal of small details, and generally being an asshole to me since the very first post you sent me…
Uhhhhh, I know nothing about you at all. I simply mocked the fact that you threw a tantrum over the voting system on this site, said you were leaving (yet you're still making posts at the frequency that you're literally making the algo block you because you're posting too often...), said "I wish the top post wasn't always some no content crap like 'all cops should die'" when a) It didn't say that and b) The actual top post was, quite literally, the exact opposite of your mid-tantrum prediction. If you've taken me mocking your hilariously bad point to mean a strong dislike, I really don't know what to tell you. Perhaps the rest of us don't hold the same irrational grudges you do? But the idea of this level of emotion for a stranger on the internet is simply too foreign for me to understand.
"You're argumentative for argumentation's sake (which is fine when you can listen to reason) and I'm really, actually, truly done with you now. Bye."
So should I take this to mean that you're going to be responding to my posts literally hundreds of times over the next hour? Because thats what happened when you said you were done with HN? Or was that because you were just being an attention whore making a shit point?
"Another poster has even explained my position to you (oddly enough, they have no trouble understanding the points I'm making here)."
I love the "I've been totally civil" next sentence "heres a not at all subtle dig from me! LOOK HOW CLEVER I AM" Bravo for pretending you're taking the high road? I guess you convinced yourself and that seems to be all that matters for you. But yeah, one guy agreed with you while everyone else downvoted you. I guess this is better than you normally do so I can see why you're proud.
In closing, no, I don't strongly dislike you, or even care about you at all. I simply think that throwing a tantrum about a community, saying it is so terrible you have to leave because your opinions aren't popular, and then making up a bunch of idiotic, disingenuous straw men to make yourself feel better is stupid and is nothing but a detriment to this community. As I said originally, don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It was perhaps an unnecessarily polarizing example, but it was the first and only thing that came to mind regarding "move" as pertaining to a lawful order without digging up the name of the rather obscure case that recently got a verdict (wherein it was determined that the officer had no authority to tell the citizen to move, that it was indeed an abuse of authority, and paired with 120+ other abuse of power complain…
I don't think it was a bad example. Are 911 dispatchers law enforcement officers? They seem like they're usually wrong in the advice they give.
Having interfaced with law enforcement at local and federal levels as part of employment, I happen to know that particular phrase literally has no meaning, except "please don't sue us if you do that, because we aren't liable, and need it on the record that we did NOT tell you to do whatever it is that you're about to do."
It's not a statement of encouragement or discouragement. That said though, if you consider the outcry that he "deliberately disobeyed a police officer", it's clear that many do not understand the concept very clearly (or they were blinded by the rest of it and went in to full witch hunt mode, which may or may not have been warranted).