201–210 of 222 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is supposed to be the point of this comment? Poor cops have terrible violence unleashed them by having civilian oversight? Or that we should ditch rule of law and structures and instead go with what the most violent local warlord wants?
I can't work out whether the grandfather post is more American Libertarian or a modern feudalal stan or something else.
> All suspicious activity reported must be behavior based. It is important to keep in mind that suspicious behavior, such as taking photographs or videos, is not a criminal act by itself, but may be a precursor to criminal activity. the number of times I've been harassed by police for taking photos... even in small towns in the middle of nowhere people are paranoid.
> [Be Safe: Be Suspicious] How can you tell who might be a terrorist? Look for the following characteristics:
> * A stranger or foreigner.
> * Argumentative, especially about politics or philosophy.
> * Probing questions about your work, particularly high-tech.
> * Spends a greater than average amount of time on the Net.
> * Interests in chemistry, electronics, or computers.
> * Large numbers of mail-order deliveries.
> * Taking photographs of major landmarks.
> And those are just a few. If you're suspicious, then turn them in to your local law enforcement for a thorough background check. Better safe than sorry. You and your neighbors will sleep more securely knowing that you're watching each other's back.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Religion is all about social function, at least from social science perceptives I guess.
well even if it's "social function", do want to be labeled as retarded? I just can't imagine tainting my name by joining those scientology retards...
People think it's doctrine, scripture and proseltysing that sustains it and anyone looking into those first 2 at least would think they're idiots but mostly it's things like CREDs (credibility enhancing displays) and group ties that contribute to believers selfidentity which calcifies the belief.
Looking at their or a different religion for what it is would challenge their sense of self and as humans we really don't like that kind of cognitive dissonance.
My thoughts as someone who doesn't know much about these types of things: 1. Terry Albury calling this list the "Panopticon" could have merit since he's a former FBI agent. However, I'd have to research more into him to figure out how credible he is, and why he is framing it like this. 2. Amazon and Facebook being in the title is most likely clickbait. They're literally only mentioned once in the article and the rest…
> The article mentions that there's no oversight program for Seattle Shield. Is that a problem? Any government body with no oversight program indicates that rule of law is optional.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's like you never heard of Snowden. You don't need to try to force yourself to believe it not being that bad because it has been worse for like 20 years already.
Your comment doesn't address any of the issues in the comment, and isn't adding to the conversation.
My thoughts as someone who doesn't know much about these types of things: 1. Terry Albury calling this list the "Panopticon" could have merit since he's a former FBI agent. However, I'd have to research more into him to figure out how credible he is, and why he is framing it like this. 2. Amazon and Facebook being in the title is most likely clickbait. They're literally only mentioned once in the article and the rest…
You've gotta be shitting me.
So what you're saying is that everyone that works at Amazon and Facebook are now at grave risk because the bad guys now think they're informants?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The article mentions that there's no oversight program for Seattle Shield. Is that a problem? Any government body with no oversight program indicates that rule of law is optional.
The rule of law is and always has been based on a monopoly of violence. That monopoly is increasingly tenuous, frankly. Even the word "oversight" implies that, if said entity being overseen ventures out of the bounds of the overseer, violence is the mechanism by which compliance is attained.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The rule of law is and always has been based on a monopoly of violence. That monopoly is increasingly tenuous, frankly. Even the word "oversight" implies that, if said entity being overseen ventures out of the bounds of the overseer, violence is the mechanism by which compliance is attained.
What is supposed to be the point of this comment? Poor cops have terrible violence unleashed them by having civilian oversight? Or that we should ditch rule of law and structures and instead go with what the most violent local warlord wants?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. Our justice system has never actually been based on evidence. It’s based on the doctrine of judicial discretion in the name of preserving order.
This is hysterical nonsense. When these things come up people tend to venture into hyperbole. Probably because it's an incentives issue (it gets clicks and upvotes). If "preserving order" was the number everyone in the judiciary optimized for all of violent riots and protests against any cause you can imagine wouldn't have happened. But they did, so therefore this concept of "no evidence" is not true. It's fine to be…