Ha, yeah, I get it. “lol they gay” is usually a joke. In this case it is not, as you mentioned:
In Sparta [...] the cropping of the bride’s hair and transvestism likely aimed to transform her temporarily into an adolescent Spartan boy – a less threatening figure to the groom, who probably had made his own transition to adulthood via a close emotional and sexual relationship with an older male
It is just what was up
I was being sarcastic but I was in no way whatsoever joking
Surrrre that’s the reason
Sssshhh
We’re doin like 5 different irrational reasons every single day why PLEASE DON’T VOTE FOR THE DEMOCRAT FELLOW LEFT WING VOTERS
It doesn’t need to make any logical sense, it just needs to be a variety of stuff and literally never fuckin stop
It’s pure magic
Fun fact! I knew you would back up from the desire for statistical rigor when it started to go both ways.
(The number of police who commit misconduct in any given year was about 1% - which is (a) enough number of police to yes still be a massive fuckin problem and deserving of significant reform oversight etc etc (b) Fun fact! Less than 100%)
Check out “Over the Garden Wall”
Fun fact! The California Innocence Project actually researched how many police officers commit "misconduct" (by their definition) in any given year. It's one of the only times I am aware of this whole issue being quantitatively studied.
If I tell you what's the number, which is statistically significant, will you then quote back to me your citation (with the statistical backing) for why you think that 0% of police killings are justified? I would actually really like to be able to have more statistical backing to talk about all of this, as opposed to just throwing our prejudices at one another.
Sure, let's talk. I'm not tryin to be hostile about it.
You set up a very vague and overbroad situation and then follow it up with a very specific to the point of anecdotal example as if that refutes my rebuttal.
I responded to someone who said the number of people the police kill per year should be 0. I brought up two specific drawn from real life examples where the cops are justified in killing someone, as a way of rebutting it. Does that make sense? Or no?
The conversation I would like to have is, how many of these 1,000 times that the police have killed someone, did the police do something wrong? If you're going to tell me that number is 0, I think you are 1,000% wrong, and I'm happy to explain why. If you're going to tell me it's a complicated question and we need to delve into quite a lot of real world details in order to answer it, then fuckin-A let's talk about it.
I think I'm being a little bit needlessly combative about it, but I don't get what you are saying that I am being bad faith about the way I'm bringing up examples. They're not disingenuous or vague in any way. It's just reality that doesn't match the simplistic frameworks that it seems like I'm hearing. Does that make sense? Or no? What details of these 100% real examples would you need to hear for them not to be vague?
Sure, let's do this like you have a good point. Here's what should happen. Domestic violence experts who are trained in psychology and deescalation techniques could intervene and create a safe exit for victims of abuse and violence. But you know what? I don't know what exactly that task force would look like or how it would operate. What I do know is, it shouldn't look like those guys in blue who shoot black people in their own homes while existing and chuck flashbangs into cribs.
If someone points a gun at the cops when they roll up to the porch to arrest them on a warrant? What if that person shoots the police while they're contacting the domestic violence expert?
(This referring to the example of someone who pulls a gun when the cops roll up to their porch. There's a separate conversation to be had about my friend's experience -- actually, as it happens, the person involved who called the cops was black, the guy who got arrested was white, and the cops showed up and talked to everyone and still managed to take the white guy away and avoid shooting the black guy or throwing any flashbangs into cribs or anywhere else -- i.e. they accomplished a success for the mission. Isn't that relevant?)
This was literally the 100% opposite of my experience in this case.
Dude getting violent and breaking shit and threatening to kill a third person, cops arrive, followed by there being 100% fewer threats in the house. You are spouting propaganda (which arose from a 100% valid reason, sure) with no particular interest in the conversation about what percent of the time it corresponds to the truth.
Your single minded imagining of how things go (i.e. always in accordance with your prejudices) is harmful to any useful progress, either in this conversation or in police reform. Good luck with your reasonings and progress in learning, sir.
They would also be justified in using enough force to stop the crime from happening.
Okay, so wouldn't it be useful to know how many of those 300,000 times when they used force matched this criteria?
I don't think they would be justified if they pulled out a gun, killed the perpetrator, and the perpetrator didn't have any weapons nor acted like they had one.
Okay, so wouldn't it be good to know for these 1000 people who the police killed, how many of them fit this criteria?
It seems like a useful question. No?
Yeah it’s like going to North Korea and bad mouthing the leader and then going to prison
It’s shitty that it is that way, but you can’t exactly be shocked or surprised about it.
I do get it. It’s some bullshit, yes.