PDA

View Full Version : Internet Trolls Are Narcissists, Psychopaths, and Sadists


Tomp
09-21-2014, 06:59 AM
or so the researchers say

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/your-online-secrets/201409/internet-trolls-are-narcissists-psychopaths-and-sadists?tr=MostViewed

ShadowbaneX
09-21-2014, 08:27 AM
in other news, water is wet, the sun will rise in the East and the Pope might just be Catholic, but first Traffic, Weather and Sports.

Frenzy
09-21-2014, 10:15 AM
Weird, I just saw an article (http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/sep/19/ig-nobel-prize-british-researchers-win)that said people who stayed up late were narcissistic, manipulative, and pschopathic.

to which i reply, "we are NOT narcissistic!!!"

Davian93
09-21-2014, 11:05 AM
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png

Nazbaque
09-21-2014, 01:32 PM
I always thought trolls trolled for the same reasons bullies bully.

Daekyras
09-21-2014, 04:59 PM
I always thought trolls trolled for the same reasons bullies bully.

Because they want my super cool G.I Joe??

Daekyras
09-21-2014, 05:01 PM
Weird, I just saw an article (http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/sep/19/ig-nobel-prize-british-researchers-win)that said people who stayed up late were narcissistic, manipulative, and pschopathic.

to which i reply, "we are NOT narcissistic!!!"

I read that article a while ago- apparantly people who stay up late are more likely to cheat on their partner too.

Shocking.

Davian93
09-21-2014, 06:05 PM
I read that article a while ago- apparantly people who stay up late are more likely to cheat on their partner too.

Shocking.

I wonder how much of that is a correlation between staying up late...ie simply not going to bed together/not spending time together and cheating?

I mean, you are naturally going to drift apart if you don't share the same interests and don't do things together as a couple more often than not. If your partner isn't also pretty much your best friend, physical attraction is only going to take a relationship so far.

The Unreasoner
09-21-2014, 11:48 PM
I always thought trolls trolled for the same reasons bullies bully.

For the health benefits? (http://time.com/96848/bullying-can-make-a-bully-healthier/)

Thankfully, I can say that I am not a psychopath, a sadist, or narcissistic, forever putting to rest the question of my alleged troll status. And I have crippling stress problems-not a sign of a bully, for those too lazy to click the link.

I am petty, hold grudges, and enjoy the occasional 'spirited discussion', though.

yks 6nnetu hing
09-22-2014, 05:34 AM
For the health benefits? (http://time.com/96848/bullying-can-make-a-bully-healthier/)

Thankfully, I can say that I am not a psychopath, a sadist, or narcissistic, forever putting to rest the question of my alleged troll status. And I have crippling stress problems-not a sign of a bully, for those too lazy to click the link.

I am petty, hold grudges, and enjoy the occasional 'spirited discussion', though.

Personal attacks = trolling. just fyi.


ps. look at your signature. you're trolling every single time you post.

The Unreasoner
09-22-2014, 11:22 AM
Southpaw is an asshole. If I have to suffer being called troll for spreading the word...

Worth the price.

Ps:
Personal attacks equals trolling? Thats a bit of a wide net.

The Unreasoner
09-22-2014, 11:24 AM
If Southpaw apologizes and admits his lies (concerning English and Ferguson), I'll change the signature. Or if I get bored with it.

yks 6nnetu hing
09-22-2014, 11:36 AM
Well then. You're a Trolly Troll McTrolloc.

Also, see my sig.

Also also, just because someone else is being annoying does not mean you need to reciprocate or escalate. Two wrongs do not make a right.

The Unreasoner
09-22-2014, 12:36 PM
Well then. You're a Trolly Troll McTrolloc.

Also, see my sig.

Also also, just because someone else is being annoying does not mean you need to reciprocate or escalate. Two wrongs do not make a right.

*sigh*

Fine...

But Southpaw really should just come clean and admit and itemize his lies.

And I suspect his first lie is his name. He comes off fairly Italian, don't you think?

yks 6nnetu hing
09-22-2014, 02:05 PM
Thank you :)

Nazbaque
09-22-2014, 02:16 PM
*sigh*

Fine...

But Southpaw really should just come clean and admit and itemize his lies.

And I suspect his first lie is his name. He comes off fairly Italian, don't you think?

So, why VCGHN?

The Unreasoner
09-23-2014, 06:49 PM
So, why VCGHN?

Well, I've had several ciphers as sigs and have never revealed the solutions. But then, no one's ever just asked either, so I'm at a loss. Do you really care?

Nazbaque
09-24-2014, 02:13 AM
Well, I've had several ciphers as sigs and have never revealed the solutions. But then, no one's ever just asked either, so I'm at a loss. Do you really care?

'Care' is such a loaded word. I'm curious nothing more, nothing less.

Daekyras
09-24-2014, 05:19 AM
'Care' is such a loaded word. I'm curious nothing more, nothing less.

Dammit. Now I care.

Is it something we should be able to figure out?

If not, clues???

DAMN YOU MORIARTY!

Tomp
09-24-2014, 01:01 PM
I suppose it's up to s to guess it.

Very Cute Gynecological Head Nurse

No, that's probably not it.

Daekyras
09-24-2014, 03:32 PM
I suppose it's up to s to guess it.

Very Cute Gynecological Head Nurse

No, that's probably not it.

Or is it a clever marketing plan for the worlds favourite female hygiene ointment-

Vagisil cream, great healing, naturally.

The Unreasoner
09-24-2014, 08:38 PM
If you two would get your minds out of the gutter, I'll give you a few clues. I was going to do it in the 'Dancing Men', in response to the Moriarty line, but I couldn't find a unique symbol for v.

My ciphers are almost always quotes or paraphrased lines from books or famous people I have admitted to liking. There's usually only one method and one pass. Here the quote is from a poster on the boards, and there is a (simple) codebook used to compress it after the substitution cipher.

It's similar to what I did here:
http://www.theoryland.com/vbulletin/picture.php?albumid=8&pictureid=26
This is the only sig I can still find. And while I think I remember what it says (a quote from Descartes), and I know the method (a certain polyalphabetic substitution cipher variant), I don't remember the key, which was the 'punchline', if you will.

This is fun for me, so if any of you have codes or ciphers to look at, feel free to post them so I can take a crack at it. We could have our own Cicada 3301 sort of thread.

Or we could combine our brainpower and take a crack at K4, which would be really cool.

Terez
09-24-2014, 11:27 PM
I would like to try Polish substitution ciphers one day. They have several single-letter words, and no native apostrophes.

Brandon did a hunt thing for something in RJ's notes about Cadsuane for one of his tours, I don't remember which. He just used hashtags. He handed out codes on his tour and when they were entered by the fans, a character was revealed. We deciphered it much more quickly than they expected, I think.

He did the same thing for a chapter of TOM on the TWOK tour, but it took us a little longer to do that one because it was chaos, an open Google Doc that anyone could edit which was being sabotaged by someone on the inside. For the Cadsuane thing, I made it a private doc and only invited a few people to edit. Everyone else had to leave comments. (I deciphered the first sentence, so I took control of the project, which caused much whining which I ignored.)

PS--Because we figured out Cadsuane so quickly, Brandon actually had to pony up a few more passages from the notes so that he could keep handing out codes.

Southpaw2012
09-25-2014, 01:50 PM
*sigh*

Fine...

But Southpaw really should just come clean and admit and itemize his lies.

And I suspect his first lie is his name. He comes off fairly Italian, don't you think?


1. I'm not lying about anything.

2. How does that even make sense in regards to my name being a lie?

3. I'm definitely not Italian. Terez, Isabel, Ishara, and many others have met me in person.

4. I'm not an ass. I get sick and tired of seeing the garbage that is spouted on this particular board. Of course, I could just stick to the actual wheel of time topic section and ignore this shit, but it's tough. I hardly have to time to come look anyways. Sure, I apologize for getting hostile, but I didn't get hostile until I was personally attacked for giving my opinion, backed by actual facts, and that pissed me off. I know I'm not going to win a political debate here when I'm outnumbered; it's like that at law school (though I have met a good number of conservative/libertarians), for the most part. It was obvious before I came here for the first time that I would be outnumbered. It is rightly assumed that a fantasy/Sci-Fi fan forum is going to be dominantly liberal.

Nazbaque
09-25-2014, 02:59 PM
Garbage spouted? Would that include me?

Probably, I am after all even worse than liberal. I am a foreigner.

But seriously southpaw, I don't remember you ever debating anything. All you do is post links to news articles that are highly biased verging on propaganda. You start new threads to do this and then never post on them again. If you don't answer to others opinions even by repeating the same propaganda, how is that a debate? Why should we care what you think about anything when you don't care what we think? Do you actually think in fact? Or do you simply pick whatever sounds nice and roll with it? Have you ever considered that you might be wrong about something? Have you ever changed your mind after realizing that you were wrong?

You see pretty much all political parties have something wrong with their opinions and agendas. I as a person who prefers logic to emotion don't therefore back any political party 100 %. I am more interested in what the actual reality is rather than who gets the bragging rights. I'd say that goes for quite a few others around here. You are dealing with people who actually think.

Southpaw2012
09-25-2014, 03:15 PM
I deal with people everyday who think. That's not the problem. Yes, I do change my mind on issues. I was a strong advocate for the war in Iraq when it first began. I regret that. And I don't post and not respond due to avoiding debate. I am quite busy and don't think a lot about coming here unless I have time. As for my "biased" news articles, which articles are these? I don't post stuff links from Fox and that's really the only conservative news site that I know about.

Nazbaque
09-25-2014, 03:50 PM
Every single article you have linked has picked a side, therefore it was biased. How much did the writer twist words to present something as a fact? A true news reporter never states his or her opinions only what they found. They in fact report. If they let their personal opinions get in the way, they have closed their minds to facts and are only reporting their own beliefs.

As for dealing with people who think, you have yet to demonstrate that you actually understood what I meant and thus your evaluation is questionable.

Uno
09-25-2014, 05:39 PM
It is rightly assumed that a fantasy/Sci-Fi fan forum is going to be dominantly liberal.

I'm not sure why fantasy readers would be expected to be liberal. The genre is, to some extent, a form of escapism from modernity. Just consider Tolkien, arguably the founder of modern fantasy.

Daekyras
09-25-2014, 06:10 PM
I'm not sure why fantasy readers would be expected to be liberal. The genre is, to some extent, a form of escapism from modernity. Just consider Tolkien, arguably the founder of modern fantasy.

I think he meant we are likely to be liberal because we can read. I think.

Davian93
09-25-2014, 07:01 PM
I'm not an ass. I get sick and tired of seeing the garbage that is spouted on this particular board. Of course, I could just stick to the actual wheel of time topic section and ignore this shit, but it's tough. I hardly have to time to come look anyways. Sure, I apologize for getting hostile, but I didn't get hostile until I was personally attacked for giving my opinion, backed by actual facts, and that pissed me off. I know I'm not going to win a political debate here when I'm outnumbered; it's like that at law school (though I have met a good number of conservative/libertarians), for the most part. It was obvious before I came here for the first time that I would be outnumbered. It is rightly assumed that a fantasy/Sci-Fi fan forum is going to be dominantly liberal.

To be fair, I am one who has ripped you in the past quite a bit...and you are not as nearly as alone as you seem to think on the Right side of the political spectrum here. You are just probably the furthest right at the moment.

And yes, the articles/stories you post are usually ridiculously biased. Drudge, Breitbart, etc are all massively biased. Just like the Left has its own super biased sites that are not nearly as bad. If you want fairly straight-forward fact-based reporting, I'd recommend Al Jazeera America (try to ignore the Arabic name...they are ridiculously balanced and they got most of their reporters from BBC. They dont take sides in their articles for the most part). Foxnews, MSNBC and CNN are all pretty pathetic when it comes to reporting of news these days...for a variety of reasons. Fox because, while their pure news dept can be good, their commentary which is ridiculously right wing predominates everything. CNN fired all its real reporters 10 years ago and now has "commentators" who read twitter feeds all day long. MSNBC is fairly to the left (albeit not as far left as Fox is to the right).

But, you need to be honest too...for the most part, your articles and comments tend to mirror outdated, factually inaccurate right-wing talking points for the most part...the same crap that Breitbart, Drudge and whatnot post on a regular basis. Even your criticisms of the Clinton years are the same idiotic attacks those sites still dust off from time to time.

I get that you are young and sure of yourself and you have never really had to deal with other viewpoints yet but this site is hardly the haven of flaming liberal thought that you think it is by any means. Trust me, I say this as a Vermonter who lives surrounded by people far more Liberal than I come off. While we're on it, the current Democratic party is a Center-Right party anyway...and it has been since the 1992 election of Clinton (who was center right himself) They jettisoned the Liberal wing of the party during their years in the wilderness (1981-1993) where they lost their majorities in the House and Senate that they had held nearly unchallenged since the New Deal era.

The GOP used to be much more centrist then too though. The terms "Northeast Republican" and "Rockefeller Republican" cant even be used anymore as there simply arent any moderate GOP members these days. They went hard right starting in 1994 and haven't looked back since. The people that were the "far right" back then like Bob Dole would be considered RINOs today (Just look at how he was treated on the floor of the Senate last year when he was there to push for the UN treaty aimed at protecting disabled people...the GOP basically spat in his face and he used to be the face of the party). Hell, Reagan would definitely be at least as "liberal" as Obama is now and Nixon was a flaming socialist compared to his modern-day GOP counterparts. The country, as a whole, swung to the right as a reaction to the unrest in the 1960s. The pendulum is slowly swinging back now after 30 years going the other way and it absolutely terrifies the far right who have doubled-down on a losing strategy.

Still, we don't have a liberal wing in America. Bernie Sanders is the closest thing we have to a true Liberal and he's not even a Democrat. Dennis Kucinich was pretty liberal too but he got gerrymandered out of a House seat by the GOP in Indiana. The GOP likes to paint people like Pelosi, Obama and Reid as dirty evil Liberals while they are anything but. Consider the "Evil" that is Obamacare. It was the GOP counter-proposal to HillaryCare in 1993. That was what Gingrich/Dole and company (the Heritage Foundation) proposed in opposition to HillaryCare's single-payer model. Fast forward 15 years and its an evil liberal plot to destroy America rather than their own bloody plan. For more fun history...one of Nixon's big proposals was Single Payer and he couldn't get it through Congress.

I could ramble on but I think you get the point.

Uno
09-25-2014, 08:22 PM
Yeah. There's a reason why historians of 20th-century American debate whether Nixon was the last of the liberals or the first of the conservatives, though I wouldn't call the GOP conservative in any traditional sense of the word.

Davian93
09-25-2014, 08:29 PM
Yeah. There's a reason why historians of 20th-century American debate whether Nixon was the last of the liberals or the first of the conservatives, though I wouldn't call the GOP conservative in any traditional sense of the word.

If I did use conservative, it was merely in the same fashion that they use it to describe themselves despite its innacuracy. Just like them calling Democrats "liberals" when it is also grossly innacurate. As I said earlier, we have a Far Right and a Center Right party in this country.

On Nixon...in a lot of ways, he can be very sympathetic as a person for a lot of reasons but then you look at some of the awful, awful things he did and realize what a real piece of human garbage he really was. A flawed, flawed man to the core...one who's vanity and insecurity destroyed him in the end.

He was quite liberal in a lot of ways but he also engineered the southern strategy which basically tapped into the same underlying racism the GOP is still using to get votes nearly 50 years later.

Uno
09-25-2014, 09:40 PM
A flawed, flawed man to the core...one who's vanity and insecurity destroyed him in the end.

From what I've read about him (and that's only a little bit of all there is to read, of course), Nixon hated the east coast liberal establishment because he felt that they mocked and disdained him because of his background (and he may well have been right about that). Thus, he wanted to bring down the establishment, which explains his seemingly "liberal" measures like the Family Assistance Plan, which would just give poor families cash and (in theory) remove the entire establishmentarian welfare bureaucracy (created by FDR's New Deal and LBJ's War on Poverty) he so disliked.

GonzoTheGreat
09-26-2014, 03:15 AM
Sure, I apologize for getting hostile, but I didn't get hostile until I was personally attacked for giving my opinion, backed by actual facts, and that pissed me off.
Then give the facts which back up your opinion that English is the official language of the USA.

Terez
09-26-2014, 03:28 AM
I get sick and tired of seeing the garbage that is spouted on this particular board.
Then stop spouting it.

GonzoTheGreat
09-26-2014, 05:57 AM
Then stop spouting it.
I'm sure that's an unrealistic expectation. It is far too easy a solution; it might actually work.

Daekyras
09-26-2014, 06:28 AM
Then give the facts which back up your opinion that English is the official language of the USA.

Wait, isn't it?

Seriously, I genuinely thought English was united states official language.

Nazbaque
09-26-2014, 06:52 AM
Wait, isn't it?

Seriously, I genuinely thought English was united states official language.

It's a question of whether it is simply the de facto language or if there is an actual law stating it as the official language.

Davian93
09-26-2014, 07:24 AM
Wait, isn't it?

Seriously, I genuinely thought English was united states official language.

We legally do not have an official language. Gov't business is typically conducted in American English but we do not have any laws stating that it must be so...and we offer translation services for lots of immigrants that need to interact with the gov't for various services. For example, USCIS has hundreds of interpreters on staff just because of that reason...same with Social Security Administration and a dozen other agencies that regularly interact with non-English speakers.

yks 6nnetu hing
09-26-2014, 07:33 AM
We legally do not have an official language. Gov't business is typically conducted in American English but we do not have any laws stating that it must be so...and we offer translation services for lots of immigrants that need to interact with the gov't for various services. For example, USCIS has hundreds of interpreters on staff just because of that reason...same with Social Security Administration and a dozen other agencies that regularly interact with non-English speakers.

see, this is something that most non-Americans (and apparently Americans)don't know. what with the 'Murcia, Fcuk YEAHHHH' going on.

Terez
09-26-2014, 11:18 AM
Southpaw is not old enough to remember the fight we had about this about 15 years ago.

GonzoTheGreat
09-26-2014, 11:28 AM
Then again, maybe English was made the official language in a secret clause of the PATRIOT Act. If that had happened, we wouldn't know about it.

The Unreasoner
09-26-2014, 03:58 PM
1. I'm not lying about anything.
I think allowing you to play the 'I was mistaken' card about your Ferguson witnesses (who do not exist), the English language, and every other thing you have stated as fact which has been proven false, or is at best just your opinion; tests our patience. You have a habit of saying things that are not true. If you are not a liar, then maybe retract your factually untrue statements.
2. How does that even make sense in regards to my name being a lie?
Maybe you're not Juan, but given your track record with the truth, you'll understand if I don't take your word for it.

Frenzy
09-26-2014, 06:33 PM
Exactly, it's more likely the not going to bed at the same time = not spending time together = drift than some odd correlation between staying up late & cheating.

It's the drift & lack of connection which may trigger cheating, but cheating is still a choice. But that's an entirely different topic.

Southpaw2012
09-27-2014, 08:07 PM
I think allowing you to play the 'I was mistaken' card about your Ferguson witnesses (who do not exist), the English language, and every other thing you have stated as fact which has been proven false, or is at best just your opinion; tests our patience. You have a habit of saying things that are not true. If you are not a liar, then maybe retract your factually untrue statements.

Maybe you're not Juan, but given your track record with the truth, you'll understand if I don't take your word for it.


My problem with the Ferguson situation was that people here were calling the officer an inbred hick when that is not accurate whatsoever. Calling him an inbred hick would be stereotyping a guy based on him being a white guy from the countryside. It'd be like calling a black guy a thug just because he's from a low income community. Neither would be correct. However, it's somehow only offensive if the latter is said nowadays when it should go both ways or no way at all. As for the incident that happened, we don't know what happened, and the people of Ferguson calling for "justice" are destroying it by creating a scene. Yes, there should be justice, but justice for both the victim and the cop. Let the system work it out. I know, many people here will probably assume that the court will be somehow "skewed" against Brown because he was black. However, that will not happen and the court system is better than letting a bunch of rioting looters decide the verdict beforehand just because they're pissed that a white cop killed a black guy (who had just gotten done robbing a store). It's quite irritating to see that the Justice Department, with that crook at the head of it, getting involved when they don't get involved in other cases of seemingly racist acts (such as the knockout game which has had blacks primarily knocking out whites). If they want to investigate incidents such as these, it needs to go both ways.

The Unreasoner
09-27-2014, 09:47 PM
1. Yes, I called him inbred. Maybe that was mean. But I have never pretended that political correctness was something I see as important.

2. I'm less worried about an unjust result from the court because of race, an rather more because the shooter is a cop. Far too often cops get off lightly for rather serious crimes.

3. Though unlike you, I'm not going to pretend that race isn't an issue. Ignoring hundreds of years of American history, the enormous statistical evidence that blacks in America are worse off than whites (and are treated worse, by landlords/cabbies/cops), and countless pieces of evidence concerning Ferguson specifically which indicate a problem with race there... to jgnore all of that, and go forward? Look what happened with Zimmerman. He got off, basically telling the jury exactly what the cop here is saying now. And now he's abusing and pointing guns at his ex, threatening to kill random strangers and stalking them outside their office. He's looking more and more like the lunatic the prosecution painted him as. Race is always an issue. But you say it 'That will not happen'? How do you know that?

4. The kid stole some swishers, which are like a dollar. And Wilson did not know this. And I'm pretty sure even cops can't go around shooting people just because they stole sometbing anyway. It's about due process.

5. Looters and rioters? Really? Yes, there was some property damage, some things stolen. But there will always be people who try to take advantage of disorder and anger. And for the most part, it was the demonstrators who put a stop to it. But a few tanks will surely lower the tension, right?

6.The knockout game is not a real thing. Note that I didn't say 'no white person has ever been randomly attacked by a group of multiple black people.

7. Here is a fact: the police in Ferguson have a documented history of racist policies, and of lying concerning this case specifically.

8. Here is my problem with you: when you hear that the information you have is wrong, you don't either challenge the person and cite your sources, or concede the point with grace and adapt your positions and worldview accordingly. Instead, you either disappear or press the same point with new unverified material. Do you think I'm lying to you about your 'witnesses' not existing?

Southpaw2012
09-27-2014, 10:50 PM
You say the cops of Ferguson, MO are known as being racist or at least questionable. This isn't about the cops of Ferguson; this is about Wilson. He does not have a history, and that is all that matters. Who cares if Brown only stole some swishers. The fact is that he committed a crime. Also, Wilson may not have known about the crime, but Brown didn't know that. It sounds like from what we know so far, that Brown attacked and Wilson fired back to defend himself as he was being beaten down. Why did he fire six shots? If you have a man larger than you bashing your face in and your first shot or two hits the dudes arm, he's not going to stop. Brown was hit many times in his arm before being shot in the head. If this was an "execution," he would not have been shot multiple times in the arm. And no, I strongly doubt this had to do with race. This had to do with a notoriously dangerous area and a cop who encountered a man who had just committed a crime.

Oh great, now it sounds like an officer has been shot in Ferguson. I doubt the Justice Department will get involved with this one though, right?

The Unreasoner
09-28-2014, 12:02 AM
You say the cops of Ferguson, MO are known as being racist or at least questionable. This isn't about the cops of Ferguson; this is about Wilson. He does not have a history, and that is all that matters.
Well, no, that is not all that matters, because the incident normally would be investigated by the PD of Ferguson. Even if Wilson is the only non-racist cop on the force (which is going a bit far, IMO. He was let go from a force that was completely dismantled due to rampant racism, violence, and corruption), he could be guilty of murder. Maybe Wilson is just a violent thug.
Who cares if Brown only stole some swishers. The fact is that he committed a crime.
And the fact is that it doesn't matter. You don't just shoot suspects. You don't even just shoot convicts.
It sounds like from what we know so far, that Brown attacked and Wilson fired back to defend himself as he was being beaten down.
No. This is another one of your facts that have been proven false. Wilson began shooting as Brown was running away. And even if Brown attacked him (which lack of evidence of a struggle in Brown's autopsy results along with video of Wilson after the incident with Wilson showing no sign of injury would dispute), you can not make the claim that Wilson had any reason to be in fear of his life when he began to shoot
Why did he fire six shots? If you have a man larger than you bashing your face in and your first shot or two hits the dudes arm, he's not going to stop. Brown was hit many times in his arm before being shot in the head. If this was an "execution," he would not have been shot multiple times in the arm.
I thought he fired ten, but whatever the case, as you can see from above, he did not even need to fire one. Again: the first shot was fired after Brown began to run away.
who encountered a man who had just committed a crime.
Jaywalking is a crime. You are basically arguing that Wilson acted as judge, jury, and executioner. And that that is somehow acceptable.
Oh great, now it sounds like an officer has been shot in Ferguson. I doubt the Justice Department will get involved with this one though, right?
So, an officer getting shot makes everything evened out? No one is arguing that it's ever okay for anyone to get shot. Both of these cases should be pursued. And so should the case of the protestor who got shot in the head. It's a pity that the police lost the bullet they confiscated and forgot to interview the victim.

The officer getting shot should have nothing to do with the Wilson/Brown incident. I would say that violence breeds violence, and a few weeks of police threatening to kill protestors and reporters for failing to disperse might have created a situation that was bound to blow up in someone's face, but you'd probably dismiss it as liberal bs.

And there are good and obvious reasons that the Justice Department is taking a hand in this. Aside from the fact that race and racism is a real issue, and demonstrated to be a real issue in Ferguson, and that every 28 hours a black person in America is killed by police or vigilantes-a kid got killed by police. Which led to massive protests, and a police response that included tanks, tweeting things like 'where is a Muslim with a backpack when you need one', and widespread use of tear gas (which we could not use on ISIS without breaking international law, but is A OK for use against men, women, and children exercising their First Amendment rights). Either the protests really were so out of control that the police were forced to militarily occupy a US city, or something is seriously wrong with the local police departments. Neither indicates that the situation could be resolved by an internal investigation by Ferguson PD (which they initially showed no sign of doing. An incident report wasn't written until 10 days after the shooting).


I am giving you facts, Southpaw. You can challenge them, and I will back them up. Or you can accept them, reassess, and post again. Do you have the strength of character, the grace, the courage to admit you were wrong? Are you capable of changing your mind? You are pretty high on my shit list right now, but it is still possible that I could come to respect, even admire you. You've dug yourself a deep hole, but through a supreme act of self-improvement you could pull yourself out, and like the Prodigal Son, be welcomed with open arms. And I don't mean you need to switch to a liberal worldview (I think you'll find I am shockingly conservative on a number of issues). Just an honest worldview.

GonzoTheGreat
09-28-2014, 04:23 AM
Oh great, now it sounds like an officer has been shot in Ferguson.
Do you apply the same standard to this (probably white) officer?
Do you assume that he had it coming because he "attacked the shooter" or something like that unless his innocence can be proven?

I suspect not. I suspect that when it comes to white police officers being shot by (possibly not white) civilians, you use a very different standard than the one you apply when a black civilian is shot by a white police officer. Of course, I could be wrong, and you might even be capable of proving me wrong in this. But I don't think that will happen.

Nazbaque
09-28-2014, 05:10 AM
Now boys you are being quite childish over this. Wrong or not he is now the one with civil conduct. Can you at least hold yourselves to that level?

GonzoTheGreat
09-28-2014, 05:23 AM
Actually, the report I've read of this incident (http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/ferguson-officer-shot-details-still-emerging/article_21e165ad-1f7f-5ae8-b30a-fb9d9dc40afe.html) suggests that my scenario is at least possible:
Ferguson Police Chief Thomas Jackson said Saturday night that the officer was on routine patrol and spotted two suspects trying to break into a business. He said the business was in Ferguson.

When the officer confronted the suspects, Jackson said, one of them pulled a gun and fired at the officer. The officer was struck once in the arm, and was expected to be okay.

At a news conference near the Ferguson Police Department early Sunday, St. Louis County Police Chief Jon Belmar gave the same account of the shooting as Jackson.

He added that police fired at the suspects at some point during the altercation. But there is no evidence that they were hit. “We have no indication either suspect was shot,” Belmar said.
If the police fired before the suspects did, or even just threatened to do so (by drawing a gun, for instance) then the shooting of the officer would indeed be just plain self defence; precisely what the 2nd Amendment is for.

I do not think that suggesting that Southpaw refrain from using a double standard is childish.

Daekyras
09-28-2014, 10:33 AM
If the police fired before the suspects did, or even just threatened to do so (by drawing a gun, for instance) then the shooting of the officer would indeed be just plain self defence; precisely what the 2nd Amendment is for.

.

I also think southpaw can be an ass but is this actually true?

If a police officer comes across a crime in process and draws his weapon, the perpetrators have a constitutional right to shoot the officer?

Is this in all cases? Say i refused to get out of a car on a routine traffic stop and the officer takes out his gun and asks me to get out i can shoot him?

GonzoTheGreat
09-28-2014, 11:18 AM
I also think southpaw can be an ass but is this actually true?

If a police officer comes across a crime in process and draws his weapon, the perpetrators have a constitutional right to shoot the officer?

Is this in all cases? Say i refused to get out of a car on a routine traffic stop and the officer takes out his gun and asks me to get out i can shoot him?
Probably not. I doubt that SCOTUS believes the propaganda about the 2nd to such an extend. I definitely would advise you not to test the hypothesis. However, for someone who defends the 2nd it might be not a trivial matter to argue against it. After all, they can't simply claim that there is no right to self defence when the government is the attacker, can they?

Terez
09-28-2014, 11:33 AM
http://www.mintpressnews.com/man-shoots-intruders-turns-knock-raid-now-faces-death-penalty/196865/

Kimon
09-28-2014, 12:08 PM
Probably not. I doubt that SCOTUS believes the propaganda about the 2nd to such an extend. I definitely would advise you not to test the hypothesis. However, for someone who defends the 2nd it might be not a trivial matter to argue against it. After all, they can't simply claim that there is no right to self defence when the government is the attacker, can they?

There is unfortunately some disturbing truth within your sarcasm - Waco, Ruby Ridge, those nuts that supported Cliven Bundy in Nevado earlier this year. Of course those were all white people thinking that they had the right to essentially declare war on the US government and its representative peace keepers. Of course it didn't end so well for those gun nuts at Waco or Ruby Ridge, not sure how or why Cliven Bundy and the nuts who pointed guns at federal officers in support of his right to commit tax evasion somehow have escaped prosecution. Had any of those folks been black I think it's a safe assumption that the right wing response to what they had done would have been very different.

Kimon
09-28-2014, 01:51 PM
http://www.mintpressnews.com/man-shoots-intruders-turns-knock-raid-now-faces-death-penalty/196865/

I'm sure it surprises no one that in the two cases they mention, both of no-knock police raids in Texas, the one with the white guy (raided to stop his couple of marijuana plants from terrorizing the community) shooting the "intruders" ended with no charges, the one with the black guy (where nothing criminal was found) ends with him on trial with the prosecutor calling for the death penalty. Why exactly a no-knock raid was necessary in either instance, considering both were just drug raids should also be addressed, but then one can't really expect common sense in Texas.

Terez
09-28-2014, 02:37 PM
I'm sure it surprises no one that in the two cases they mention, both of no-knock police raids in Texas, the one with the white guy (raided to stop his couple of marijuana plants from terrorizing the community) shooting the "intruders" ended with no charges, the one with the black guy (where nothing criminal was found) ends with him on trial with the prosecutor calling for the death penalty. Why exactly a no-knock raid was necessary in either instance, considering both were just drug raids should also be addressed, but then one can't really expect common sense in Texas.
It's not in Sini's area so we can't blame him. :)

The Unreasoner
09-28-2014, 03:29 PM
Is it true that the prosecutor in charge of presenting the facts to the grand jury is known as 'a police officer's best friend' and has a history of not filing charges? If so, is there a way forward that sees this inbred thug in jail where he belongs? Or if the grand jury doesn't decide to move forward, does it end here? With Wilson basically given a long paid vacation and a half million dollar bonus,

@Southpaw
Don't run and hide yet. I demand to hear your thoughts on whether you still think the shooting was justified, given that you now know your basic facts on the case were wrong. And I want to know how you can be so confident that the legal process won't be affected by race (seriously, all you said was 'that will not happen').

Meanwhile, the girl who was shot in the head still has no answers. Police are calling it a drive-by, but weren't there and didn't interview the victim, who says that the alleged 'suspects' were actually helping her. They were wearing ski masks, but only to protect against tear gas. The police have no report, aren't investigating, and have now lost the bullet. Frankly, it looks like they are covering it up, which points to a cop being the shooter. Certainly if their story about a drive by was accurate, it would get more attention. It nicely plays into their narrative about the protestors being largely a group of violent looters and rioters. The silence is defeaning, here.

Uno
09-30-2014, 09:48 AM
Exactly, it's more likely the not going to bed at the same time = not spending time together = drift than some odd correlation between staying up late & cheating.

It doesn't have to be an especially odd correlation, really, not if they stay up late to visit porn chats.

The Unreasoner
10-06-2014, 06:28 PM
Where are you, you little shit?

Aren't you going to gloat about the grand jury in Ferguson thinking there isn't enough evidence to convict the inbred cop? Or try to blame Obama for ebola?

Coward.

I think Southpaw, and child molestors everywhere, should learn to properly vet their sources before posting.*

Southpaw2012
10-06-2014, 11:18 PM
Dude, what the hell... I'm in law school. I don't have time to come check this all the time.

Do I think the shooting was justified? I don't know. None of us know. That's the whole problem. The issue in this has been the radical response to the shooting when we don't know all the facts yet. These protestors call for justice, yet they vandalize and loot stores of people who are truly innocent. They call for justice, yet they want this cop dead when they don't know why he shot. All I'm saying is we have a cop with a clean history and a guy with a criminal background including a crime he had just committed minutes before. That right there should raise red flags. We have heard that the cop had not heard of the theft, but that doesn't mean Brown knew that the cop didn't know. Brown was shot many times in the arm so either the cop was being attacked or he was extremely bad at executing someone.

All I'm saying is that instead of taking the liberal route of blaming every white on black crime as racism, lets wait for the facts to come out. Damn...

I don't have time to check this all the time. I'm pretty sure I'm the lone conservative/libertarian here, so I would never get off here if I responded to every comment.

Nazbaque
10-07-2014, 12:44 AM
*Hanges up Unreasoner and Southpaw by their wrists*

Now boys if you aren't going to play nice things will get interesting.

*Pulls out Balrog whip*

*Sets himself on fire*

Would you like me to make this interesting?

The Unreasoner
10-07-2014, 01:12 AM
Well Juan, I'm not necessarily accusing this inbred piece of shit of racism (and since you have a tendency to call black people crooks, I am going to keep calling people with sunken eyes, a receding hairline, protruding ears, terrible judgement, and violent tendencies inbred). Although looking at the hard numbers, it seems like most of the cops of both his current and former employers are racist, so giving him the benefit of the doubt may be unwarranted. We know Brown mouthed off to the guy (or, I do. Being several thousand miles away from Florida (and still not far enough), I can hardly reach up your ass to pull out the same facts you are using). I think the cop just lost his temper and killed the guy in a fit of rage, on a bs power trip. Certainly the tanks and Officer Go Fuck Yourself's comments point to a pattern of officers in the area going on power trips. In other words, murder 2, not an execution.

And it turns out I was wrong about the officer not knowing about the robbery. So, I retract that. But I stand by the point that there is a thing called due process. I would have hoped a lawyer in training would know that.

Do you really think the officers have been acting in a professional manner in any way? Threatening to kill people exercising their first amendment rights, tweeting their desire for the demonstrators to be killed by terrorists, and-I cannot stress this enough-busting out fucking TANKS? What kind of libertarian thinks a millitarized police force is a good thing, especially for a place where the first guy killed this year (and he may be the only one) was killed by a cop? Rand Paul spoke against this nonsense when he saw what was unfolding in Ferguson. Tanks are not cheap.

And, I'll say again, Brown was first shot as he was running away. You keep pressing a point based on untrue facts. You may not repeat them after being called out, but you haven't reassessed the situation or went through any kind of logical train of thought to come up with your position.

What part of the police response and behavior suggests to you that they are capable of investigating this matter on their own?

The Unreasoner
10-07-2014, 01:33 AM
And don't give me that 'let's wait for the facts to come out' bullshit. They're out. Just because you don't seem to know them doesn't negate their power. First shot as he was running away. No sign of a struggle in autopsy. Video of the cop looking perfectly fine after the incident (as in, no orbital fracture. And, disturbingly, no apparent discomfort at just killing a kid). No incident report filed for ten days (and then only in response to legal action from civil rights groups). No use of force report written. Several instances where the pd actually lied to the public, documented. Don't weasel out by playing the 'you're playing the race card' card. Or by pretending to be some persecuted ideological minority. I've argued against abortion, banking regulations, political correctness, even gay marriage (though I changed my mind there). I thought OWS was a bunch of useless entitled whining brats. I'm not the straw man you are painting.

So walk me through this. I gave you some facts. What do you think they indicate? I really need to know if you are willfully ignorant or just have a radically different mind than most people I encounter, wherever they lie on the political spectrum

The Unreasoner
10-07-2014, 01:42 AM
*Hanges up Unreasoner and Southpaw by their wrists*

Now boys if you aren't going to play nice things will get interesting.

*Pulls out Balrog whip*

*Sets himself on fire*

Would you like me to make this interesting?

Are you threatening moderator action? I think my anger here is entirely justified. Though if you want to talk about cryptography, infidelity, or whatever the original topic of this thread was; I will play nice. But on this, I use justifiable force.

Davian93
10-07-2014, 07:10 AM
Dude, what the hell... I'm in law school. I don't have time to come check this all the time.

Do I think the shooting was justified? I don't know. None of us know. That's the whole problem. The issue in this has been the radical response to the shooting when we don't know all the facts yet. These protestors call for justice, yet they vandalize and loot stores of people who are truly innocent. They call for justice, yet they want this cop dead when they don't know why he shot. All I'm saying is we have a cop with a clean history and a guy with a criminal background including a crime he had just committed minutes before. That right there should raise red flags. We have heard that the cop had not heard of the theft, but that doesn't mean Brown knew that the cop didn't know. Brown was shot many times in the arm so either the cop was being attacked or he was extremely bad at executing someone.

All I'm saying is that instead of taking the liberal route of blaming every white on black crime as racism, lets wait for the facts to come out. Damn...

I don't have time to check this all the time. I'm pretty sure I'm the lone conservative/libertarian here, so I would never get off here if I responded to every comment.

~throws up~

I agree with Southpaw here...

Daekyras
10-07-2014, 07:35 AM
~throws up~

I agree with Southpaw here...

there there. its ok now.
Its all ok when its out in the open. On the floor. Stinking the place up..

Ivhon
10-07-2014, 07:40 AM
~throws up~

I agree with Southpaw here...

thanks. now we all have ebola because you had to go agree with southpaw.

asshole.

Davian93
10-07-2014, 09:04 AM
He's right in that none of us really know the full story and that its silly to jump on one side or the other really.

GonzoTheGreat
10-07-2014, 09:42 AM
One side of the story is dead, and the other is saying "I was justified in killing the kid, really, just trust me on that". Hard to figure out which side is right when the positions are so disparate, isn't it?

Of course, it is different for Europeans, who use "innocent until proven guilty" instead of the American "innocent until proven dead" thing.

The Unreasoner
10-07-2014, 09:45 AM
~throws up~

I agree with Southpaw here...

About what? That the FBI and and Justice Department didn't need to step in? That Holder is a 'crook'? That, since Brown was a 'crook', he had it coming? That race won't play an issue in the court because 'that will not happen'? That the prosecution won't be botched simply because the shooter was a cop? That lethal force was necessary as Brown was running away? That lethal force was necessary as Brown turned around and put up his hands? That Tasers wouldn't do the trick? That we should write off all of the demonstrators because of a few opportunistic thieves and provacateurs? That the police response (both Wilson killing Brown after Brown mouthed off to him; and using tanks, tear gas, and death threats to 'keep the peace' in response to the protests) is in any way reasonable? That the facts that already are out (including physical evidence specific to the shooting and the nonexistent beatdown, evidence showing no one at either Ferguson or St. Louis PD making a real effort to investigate the shooting before the ACLU demanded to see the incident report and they admitted they hadn't bothered to write one a week and a half later, evidence showing clear racial disparities in the cops' treatment of those they 'protect and serve', and evidence suggesting the cops of Ferguson are basically pricks with guns on a power trip-like when they hogtied a (black) twelve year old who was just getting his mail) aren't troubling on their own? That, if nothing ends up being provable against Wilson, we should just shrug and say 'justice was done' and let this 'public servant' come back from his weeks long paid vacation (with a half million dollar bonus) and let him 'protect and serve' some more?

Really, what about Southpaw's position do you find so compelling?

Davian93
10-07-2014, 09:47 AM
Don't be an ass, Gonzo. For one, the Justice Dept is still investigating the entire incident as well as the police department's practices as a whole. Why not at least wait until that is closed out?

Davian93
10-07-2014, 09:49 AM
Dude, what the hell... I'm in law school. I don't have time to come check this all the time.

Do I think the shooting was justified? I don't know. None of us know. That's the whole problem. The issue in this has been the radical response to the shooting when we don't know all the facts yet. These protestors call for justice, yet they vandalize and loot stores of people who are truly innocent. They call for justice, yet they want this cop dead when they don't know why he shot. All I'm saying is we have a cop with a clean history and a guy with a criminal background including a crime he had just committed minutes before. That right there should raise red flags. We have heard that the cop had not heard of the theft, but that doesn't mean Brown knew that the cop didn't know. Brown was shot many times in the arm so either the cop was being attacked or he was extremely bad at executing someone.

All I'm saying is that instead of taking the liberal route of blaming every white on black crime as racism, lets wait for the facts to come out. Damn...

I don't have time to check this all the time. I'm pretty sure I'm the lone conservative/libertarian here, so I would never get off here if I responded to every comment.

I bolded the parts I agreed with. As to the rest, you both really need to just calm down to be honest.

The Unreasoner
10-07-2014, 09:51 AM
He's right in that none of us really know the full story and that its silly to jump on one side or the other really.

Oh. Maybe. But I think there is enough information already out there to make some kind of preliminary judgement. And as Gonzo pointed out, one side is conveniently dead. Dismissing this as 'crook gets shot by cop' seems a bit callous and premature, even unsupported.

ETA: While you may hold this 'let's wait for all of the facts to come out' position honestly, Southpaw clearly doesn't. He was perfectly happy to make judgements with less than all of the facts when he thought the facts were in Wilson's favor. Only after he saw the real facts did he try this tactic, attempting to negate inconvenient facts with a blanket statement.

GonzoTheGreat
10-07-2014, 10:02 AM
Don't be an ass, Gonzo. For one, the Justice Dept is still investigating the entire incident as well as the police department's practices as a whole. Why not at least wait until that is closed out?
Suppose that they onclude "nobody knows"*. Then I suppose that it would be decided that the police officer could not be prosecuted, thus proving that the "innocent until proven dead" standard did indeed apply.

Me, I still think that simply gunning someone down in the street should not be allowed, unless you can show a good enough reason for doing that. But I admit that the Zimmerman case has shown me that not everyone uses the same standard as I do.

* Might be quite interesting, but it wouldn't be very satisfying.

Davian93
10-07-2014, 10:08 AM
Suppose that they onclude "nobody knows"*. Then I suppose that it would be decided that the police officer could not be prosecuted, thus proving that the "innocent until proven dead" standard did indeed apply.

Me, I still think that simply gunning someone down in the street should not be allowed, unless you can show a good enough reason for doing that. But I admit that the Zimmerman case has shown me that not everyone uses the same standard as I do.

* Might be quite interesting, but it wouldn't be very satisfying.

If they do, they do. No reason to get all riled up beforehand though.

Nazbaque
10-07-2014, 11:38 AM
Are you threatening moderator action? I think my anger here is entirely justified. Though if you want to talk about cryptography, infidelity, or whatever the original topic of this thread was; I will play nice. But on this, I use justifiable force.

Well not having moderator powers my threatening such would a bit on the empty side. In general you both annoy me at the moment. Southpaw's habit of stating his political opinions in every post he makes is getting old and your inability to act in a civil manner is catching up fast.

And there is no such thing as justifiable anger so don't even try that with me.

yks 6nnetu hing
10-08-2014, 01:33 AM
Well not having moderator powers my threatening such would a bit on the empty side. In general you both annoy me at the moment. Southpaw's habit of stating his political opinions in every post he makes is getting old and your inability to act in a civil manner is catching up fast.

And there is no such thing as justifiable anger so don't even try that with me.

Unreasoner: not cool.

I do wonder, are you really this angry about something - in which case, I wonder is it *really* about the issue you're posting here? Or, are you simply stirring up trouble because you're bored? Either way, learn some self control man.

Nae'blis
10-08-2014, 01:00 PM
At this point, it would be good if everyone (we're looking at you, Unreasoner) refrained from unwarranted personal attacks.

1) We have no reason to think that Southpaw is an alternate account for the former poster Juan, so kindly stop calling him by that name.

2) You may disagree with Southpaw as much as you like, but there's no need to resort to name calling.

3) Southpaw is under no moral obligation to respond to anyone's posts if he doesn't want to, so there's no call for denouncing him for his failure to do so within a time frame you find convenient. Walking away from an unconstructive debate on the internet has frequently been found to be a wise course of action. No medals are awarded for getting the last word online.

4) A reminder to everyone: It's not a pretty thing when multiple posters gang up on one individual. If you find yourself in that situation, consider carefully whether you are acting like a bully.

If we all manage to adhere to some basic protocol, that is, act like largely functional adults, Nae'blis won't have to do anything further, and that's good, because Nae'blises gets irritable when people want them to do things. You wouldn't like us when we're irritable.

Ivhon
10-08-2014, 01:14 PM
At this point, it would be good if everyone (we're looking at you, Unreasoner) refrained from unwarranted personal attacks.

1) We have no reason to think that Southpaw is an alternate account for the former poster Juan, so kindly stop calling him by that name.

2) You may disagree with Southpaw as much as you like, but there's no need to resort to name calling.

3) Southpaw is under no moral obligation to respond to anyone's posts if he doesn't want to, so there's no call for denouncing him for his failure to do so within a time frame you find convenient. Walking away from an unconstructive debate on the internet has frequently been found to be a wise course of action. No medals are awarded for getting the last word online.

4) A reminder to everyone: It's not a pretty thing when multiple posters gang up on one individual. If you find yourself in that situation, consider carefully whether you are acting like a bully.

If we all manage to adhere to some basic protocol, that is, act like largely functional adults, Nae'blis won't have to do anything further, and that's good, because Nae'blises gets irritable when people want them to do things. You wouldn't like us when we're irritable.

Nae'blae. Get it right.

Sarevok
10-08-2014, 04:55 PM
Nae'blae. Get it right.

Considering how Old Tongue nouns tend to behave, Nae'blin is more likely. :p

Daekyras
10-09-2014, 03:09 AM
Considering how Old Tongue nouns tend to behave, Nae'blin is more likely. :p

In that case would that make a single moderator an A'Nae'bler?

I might need to rest now...

GonzoTheGreat
10-09-2014, 03:20 AM
Walking away from an unconstructive debate on the internet has frequently been found to be a wise course of action.
Pics or it didn't happen.