Random Thoughts (Political Edition)

No comments on Roy Moore yet? Well he appears to have had attempted to have sex with a 14 year old girl while in his 30s.

For those that don't remember who he is, he is the former Alabama state judge that went to court over the 10 Commandments monument being in the courthouse. He is now running for the Senate seat that is open in Alabama(Jeff Sessions former seat?).

He has stated that the "forces of evil" are behind this attack.

I will not give the man credence by discussing him or bringing the spotlight to him.

Suffice it to say that he should resign his nomination and the potential crimes should be investigated.
 
The amount of high-profile sexual harassment/abuse allegations coming out recently is dizzying.

Which is a very good thing. Such people need to be held accountable and prevented from victimizing anyone else. But it does push the door open even wider for false accusations to be used as a weapon. The sad disgraceful thing about politics is all the motive that exists for such dishonorable tactics to be used. It would be far from good if this became "a thing" going forward. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be much we can do about it. Innocent until proven guilty doesn't mean much when the accusation alone will destroy your career regardless of whether you're found guilty or even face trial at all.

The accusation against this Roy Moore guy is almost 40 years old. I doubt we will ever know for sure what actually happened.
 
Just read LCK statement, refreshing to see an apology that seems sincere like that.
 
I made a comment some time ago following the Vegas shooting about how this country's refusal to discuss any form of gun control often leads to the erosion of our privacy. Well, this image was taken at the open air mall "The Grove" in LA this evening during their tree lighting ceremony:

mriiwosxwoxz.jpg
 
[...]But it does push the door open even wider for false accusations to be used as a weapon. The sad disgraceful thing about politics is all the motive that exists for such dishonorable tactics to be used. It would be far from good if this became "a thing" going forward. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be much we can do about it. Innocent until proven guilty doesn't mean much when the accusation alone will destroy your career regardless of whether you're found guilty or even face trial at all. [...]

One thing almost all the cases that have been dragged into the spotlight recently have in common is that there is always a big disparence in power between the individuals involved. Complaing that people possibly wrongly accused may lose their career is a bit of a slap in the face for those who have been pressured into (or to keep quiet about) sexual harassment/abuse - by the threat to destroy their careers (lives etc).

#poeticInjustice

And to clarify; I am not saying accusing people wrongly is a good thing. The contrary, it's terrible. But I find it a bit cynical to whine about (for example, replace this name with others) Harvey Whinesteins :D career being over - when he was the one who seems to have threatend to ruin the careers of others ...

People in power abusing their positions for their gain (not just on a sexual level, but generally), sadly is a very common trait in humanity. The questions is how we move forward so that we have less of this in the future.
I think honesty helps.

Just read LCK statement, refreshing to see an apology that seems sincere like that.

Just what I mean ...
 
I made a comment some time ago following the Vegas shooting about how this country's refusal to discuss any form of gun control often leads to the erosion of our privacy. Well, this image was taken at the open air mall "The Grove" in LA this evening during their tree lighting ceremony:

mriiwosxwoxz.jpg

You are making a wrong assumption. NYC has extremely strict gun control and yet we have to go through bag check and metal detectors at almost every large venue. Not to mention random bag searches at subway entrances and stop and frisk laws.
 
There is no such thing as a "stop and frisk law". That is a NYC-PD policy that has been ruled by the courts to be unconstitutional.
 
Complaing that people possibly wrongly accused may lose their career is a bit of a slap in the face for those who have been pressured into (or to keep quiet about) sexual harassment/abuse

It depends on whether the accusation is true or not. I think TC is right because we are now in a phase where it doesn't take a judge to end your career, it just takes an accusation without proofs, basically a rumour. If later the accused will be found innocent, his career will have already been destroyed.

The problem is how to avoid this, so how to have people judged by courts instead of by the masses, the Daily Mail, or the Internet.

Harvey Whinesteins :D career being over - when he was the one who seems to have threatend to ruin the careers of others ...

Two things: the first one is: an italian director has been accused of molesting women by an actress who worked with him, but other actresses who also worked with him have stepped up and defended him. His career is now on the brink. If other WOMEN hadn't stepped up to defend him, he would be ruined.

I find this situation dangerous, because it strips justice from where justice should be, because it puts people to the mercy of... the general public, who has no tool whatsoever to judge appropriately, and because the only chance for the accused person is to have some people -of a specific gender- to vouch for him. And it is still just a chance.

In the end, no one in the general public wants to know the truth, they just want to have their mind interested for a couple of minutes, defecate down some fast judgments on something they don't know and keep this prejudice forever without having to use their mind or to reconsider it later on. This is quite far from justice as I understand it.

On the Weinstein case, there is more than one side of the same medal; for example, many women had to choose between accepting Weinstein's sexual proposals, or having problems with their job as actresses. Very bad for sure. However, do not forget that many of them wouldn't have had the offer with Weinstein, had they not been gorgeous women but, say, men (with the same acting talent). There is more, some of the women who -accepted- Weinstein's sexual advances would not be where they are hadn't they been what they are and acted how they acted.

We tend to focus on one aspect of the situation and to forget about the other ones, while they are intertwined and they cannot possibly be selectively erased.

To me, the idea of using power to gain sexual favours, or to use (sexual) power to get where your talent could not get you otherwise, is very bad, because it is unfair and vastly inefficient, but it is comprised by more than just the predator's figure.

People in power abusing their positions for their gain (not just on a sexual level, but generally), sadly is a very common trait in humanity. The questions is how we move forward so that we have less of this in the future.

The first thing, I think, is to teach people to start using their brains and to understand -why- something is bad, and what can be done that is -better- than that, not just put random ideas in their head and let them become zealots of some blind divine rule.
 
Last edited:
There is no such thing as a "stop and frisk law". That is a NYC-PD policy that has been ruled by the courts to be unconstitutional.

I don't remember it being ruled unconstitutional, I remember it being found to be mostly affecting POC but NYPD said they will continue doing it anyway basically.

Just a random aside, I had to go through Xray machines and metal detectors to get into high school before Columbine happened.
 
I don't remember it being ruled unconstitutional, I remember it being found to be mostly affecting POC but NYPD said they will continue doing it anyway basically.

Just a random aside, I had to go through Xray machines and metal detectors to get into high school before Columbine happened.


It sort of was. I had to refresh my memory as well, but the judge did say:

Scheindlin, Floyd v. the City of New York, Aug. 12, 2013: In conclusion, I find that the City is liable for violating plaintiffs? Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The City acted with deliberate indifference toward the NYPD?s practice of making unconstitutional stops and conducting unconstitutional frisks.

The Judge did not order the city to stop the practice though, which I think is complete BS.


http://www.factcheck.org/2016/09/is-stop-and-frisk-unconstitutional/
 
You are making a wrong assumption. NYC has extremely strict gun control and yet we have to go through bag check and metal detectors at almost every large venue. Not to mention random bag searches at subway entrances and stop and frisk laws.

lol

Yeah, I?m making a wrong assumption, never mind the fact that this mall never had metal detectors for this event before...
 
I fail to see how it's a solution to install metal detectors and make it impossible for people to exercise their rights. This is just more Californian snowflakery that will do absolutely nothing to stop criminals and everything to infringe on our rights.
 
lol

Yeah, I?m making a wrong assumption, never mind the fact that this mall never had metal detectors for this event before...

Then how do you explain the fact that this type of thing has been the case in NYC for the past 20 years or so? It got a lot worse after 9/11, despite very stiff FEDERAL requirements to operate airliners. Your wrongness here is that you are assuming a connection where there isn't necessarily one. LA has strict gun laws does it not? Yet they still felt the need to install metal detectors.
 
Your wrongness here is that you are assuming a connection where there isn't necessarily one. LA has strict gun laws does it not? Yet they still felt the need to install metal detectors.

So in other words, the Vegas and Texas shootings have no connection to the event organizer's decision to add metal detectors, got it.
 
So in other words, the Vegas and Texas shootings have no connection to the event organizer's decision to add metal detectors, got it.
It's a knee-jerk emotional reaction backed by virtually no reason or logic.
 
So in other words, the Vegas and Texas shootings have no connection to the event organizer's decision to add metal detectors, got it.

I don't think I expressed my point well enough, that's my bad. What I am trying to say is that gun control laws, whatever they may be, have little to no bearing on erosion of our privacy. Any kind of tragic even will be used in order to justify adding more layers to the security theater regardless of how likely the even is to repeat.

Hell look at TSA, 9/11 had nothing to do with guns whatsoever and subsequent attempts, that TSA failed to stop, didn't either and yet we all have to take our belts off, throw out our water bottles and take off our shoes.

Regardless of all of that though, why should my 2A rights be restricted to preserve my 4A rights? If police check points were set up at every single confederate statue in response to Antifa and Alt-Right protests would you suggest that we need to pass hate speech laws in order to preserve our ability to use public spaces without interference?
 
Top