Lurker > Solid_Sonic

I think the difference in view I have is that maybe less enforcement is good but that comes in the form of raising the ceiling of what doesn't need to be enforced and conscientious and proactive staffing of law enforcement (non-police, albeit unbiased and not strictly looking out for civilian interest, oversight is of utmost necessity). The level and consistency of enforcement should not change, it's mindful enforcement that I want to see.

Also, if I'm being frank, I think we need to make it okay in law enforcement (maybe even overall but certainly in law enforcement) to come out (in a safe space) and say when an officer feels like they're nurturing some kind of bias and prejudgment that is being spurred by their work. You need to know when someone has seen too much of something that it's tainting their ability to conduct fair policing. Instead it all just goes unspoken and eventually embeds itself as a subconscious reaction that festers as skewed policing (officers who are so far gone that they'd deny they don't discriminate but it's not true).

LSGW_Zephyra posted...

This is complicated. Very few people think there should be 0 consequences. There is a lot of debate on what those consequences should be.

Secondly this is proportional harm. How much damage did I do vs how much damage to me is done in retribution. A broken can be repaired quickly, being mistreated by police can last a very long time.

Finally there is who is being harmed. If the house belongs to a terrible person who justifiably hurts others, a bit of crime unto them is probably ok.

No idea what you're talking about here. There is a vast swath of difference between Joe blow the crack head doing crack on a sidewalk then Harry Murderpants who really likes murder.

That's why ACAB and defund the police is mostly aimed at beat cops and less aimed at investigators for violent crimes. Beat Cops are an active danger and we know they cause more problems then they solve. Broken Windows policing causes more problems then it solves. It does nothing to prevent these things from happening and only adds to the hurt.

Actually those people who just do crack on the street aren't as minor a problem as you make it sound. It's mostly mental illness and homelessness but those sorts of things do need to be controlled for peoples' safety. Isolating people from doing hard drugs in public spaces does serve a greater good, even if I also agree that treating the person as an addict instead of a criminal is more fruitful.

ai123 posted...

Well, not everyone takes the view that the root cause of crime is 'garbage people'.

Well I use that to refer to the powers that be and their fey attempts at appearing concerned and enacting real change at the expense of cost or relationships with the wealthy elite.

Because whenever I take the stance that crime is causing unbearable weight on the functions of society and you shouldn't be surprised at the outcomes I feel like I'm steering the conversation to "stop hating the crime and start hating the garbage people who won't make civilization more livable so crime is less appealing to living an honest life."

There's definitely some of that but...at the end of the day I still know there are those misanthropes and sociopaths who just commit acts of wrongdoing because society said they can't and they enjoy that (or are so far gone that "wrong" has lost all meaning or sense of transgression). I feel like those are the people committing the sorts of retail theft I'm envisioning (as an outsider looking in to me it appears as if they say "you live in MY world and these are MY rules, deal with it") and there are a shocking number of them.

LSGW_Zephyra posted...

It's also worth noting this is just one of many reasons why ACAB. There is also the power and influence of police unions, their racist history and the militarization of police as well.

Let me defer to you here then: I hate crime and in a "justice needs to be served" sort of way (not a "crime is a sign of a deeper cancer we aren't properly addressing as a society"). I acknowledge the other point of view but to me the moral component of "do not do things to others that makes their life worse and we need consequences for those who can't understand that," overrides any desire to troubleshoot why people have resorted to living lawlessly. I struggle to live at peace thinking that we need to be gentler with those who act out of line when the depravity and ruthlessness that can spawn from the criminal mindset is so evident so what is the right way forward?

VeggetaX posted...

I'm hugely against it but would donate so I don't get looked at the odd ball out and to stay out of trouble. Last year our top boss was renovating his kitchen so he couldn't cook any food so his brown nosing office assistant asked everyone to donate some money so he and his family could buy go eat out while his kitchen is getting fixed. Fucking stupid if you ask me

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/4/8/7/AAAHH2AAE4IX.png

:/ Personally I would find such thinking to be weak of character. "I don't care about what happens but at least by donating I don't have to lose face."

Like pick a side. If you truly don't feel someone's physical wellness isn't worth your contribution because of who they are then don't cow to the potential pressure that comes from anyone else.

Also is it really so unreasonable to hate crime? You should be upset when you see people brazenly acting like stealing is a valid occupation that shouldn't have to be hidden from others. Sure stealing stuff by loading up your purse in the bathroom is wrong but at least they know they shouldn't be allowed to get away with it. That demonstrates a slight amount of forward thinking about consequences.

Just barging in, taking stuff without any shame, then acting indignant about people not putting up with your bullshit is so morally bankrupt it kind of hurts. That sort of behavior gets me so disgruntled I want to punch something. It's like "post-scumbag".

ai123 posted...

Asking for anonymous voluntary donations would be OK.

Asking everyone for a specific sum is not.

Yeah, that would definitely smooth things over for me and remove any doubt about what I'm contributing to then.

"Broken windows" basically means "never treat crime like it's not important." If you let slide low-level crime that has a small impact then you're on a slippery slope to more severe forms of disorder.

The literal interpretation is "if you don't fix the broken windows then people will start to think it's okay to break more" (referring to throwing rocks). Signs of civil disorder, even little ones, gradually convinces the community to commit more and more of it (because who's stopping us if no one says anything it's assumed permissible), which deteriorates the entire moral structure. So enforce the little laws (jaywalking, walking around with an open container, etc.) so that everyone is constantly reminded of the tolerance in play.

The problem with this is a) cops who try to use this as a justification for prejudgment and bigotry spending more time enforcing those little things on a specific population and b) having laws that target things with such low social impact (like smoking or carrying weed in public) that the sorts of things you can't let slide are harmful to the public's relationship with law enforcement. You want laws that are fairly easy to understand by most why they're being enforced, even if they're bothered by why it's being enforced on them. When laws are being enforced simply because they exist and present no actual public safety/peace keeping concerns it makes the idea that stopping the small stuff to prevent the big stuff look nitpicky and martial.

Straddles the line. On one hand, yeah, seems dubious to case the staff for cash for someone at the top of the company but it's also not like he asked to fall ill (unless he led a really unhealthy lifestyle and figured it would never catch up with him). If the gesture is as simple as "it's another human in suffering, we're just trying to be supportive," then it seems harmless.

Now if that guy is an asshole to the people who work under them and take for granted the hard work the boots on the ground contribute to the success they try to claim for themselves then they can rot for all I care. Someone like that wouldn't take the time to look into an employee going through the same thing with fewer resources on top of it:

After I already paid for the fucking Epic Games version?! I was contemplating PIRATING the Switch version to avoid buying it on Epic, I only gave up when I wasn't satisfied with the performance at low specs...

For the record I do enjoy Blue Bloods and they seem to think this is a good way to control criminal activity on that show.

I will concede that it can easily be twisted by unfettered police to harass certain segments of the population they prejudge as "troublesome" instead of equally addressing low level crime across the board. That isn't right but you would have to agree it's not the policy's fault but the kinds of people enforcing it in that case.

Revelation34 posted...

If I saw someone shoplifting I would ignore it. It's not my business and it's not my problem to deal with.

If they were being subtle about it whatever. I have a problem with it when illegal activity is so mundane to someone that they would rather fight you to continue doing it in the open than change their methods to stay under the radar.

It's like trying to win an argument by shouting at someone until they don't want to talk anymore instead of backing off and reframing your position before reengaging.

Little bits of shoplifting doesn't describe the blatantly aggressive and openly hostile forms of retail theft I'm thinking of.

When you think "shoplift" you imagine someone tucking a product under their jacket or in a bag then walking out as quickly as possible, not coming in with a ski mask and just pulling stuff off the shelves in full view of literally everyone.

And what really burns me up is the entitlement. These people get PISSED when you try to interfere and react kind of like "you don't see ME interrupting YOUR day, do you, fuck off." Bitch you are STEALING and you have the gall to act like you have every right to be there and all these gawkers and people trying to stop you are somehow in the wrong? They throw things and become combative but they don't drop everything and run like you'd expect a thief to.

Like, shit, at least recognize you're breaking the law and no one wants you around. Criminals being assholes about their crime is contributing to my misanthropy...

Personally I like studying scamming but it is pretty depressing the way some people fall victim (especially when it involves, what seems to me, stupid shit like sending a picture of your balls to someone whose only identification to you was a photo that they stole off Instagram).

Validation and due diligence seems to be the real failing of this generation. Taking things for granted on an anonymous platform like the Internet seems highly inept from my point of view.

Ar0ge posted...

Well the article you posted literally lists some reasons that could explain it.

Why don't you read it?

Because it's professionally written and isn't willing to use the harsh language that users of an online forum might to accurately describe such individuals.

Priere posted...

They dont like to listen to you when you tell them they are falling for an obvious scam.

No matter how gently you put it, they feel like you are jealous of their golden opportunity or something.

Then when it happens and you say "I told you so" they get real asshurt and say you are victim blaming them.

Its best to just let them fall for a crypto scam or something and have them learn from it naturally.

That doesn't sound endemic to young people, I feel like anyone would give you that response if they convinced themselves it was legitimate.

Wandering__Hero posted...

Citation needed

Wow, this was just posted an hour ago. How timely.

https://www.techspot.com/news/100277-gen-z-falls-victim-online-scams-more-often.html

How do we help?

Florida feels less likely since the Trump years. Prior to that it was possible.

There are people here RIGHT NOW who would argue if you don't like the implication the name "Karen" carries because it's your name then you need to change your name instead of complaining about it.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


Ehhh...that's a little unfair. I actually thought 1 was pretty good, just choppy. I haven't played 2 very extensively.

I came in here to see if someone said "shut the fuck up".

Agonized_rufous posted...

Anyone else get a VM2?

I've got two inbound. I plan on offloading most if not all my old memory units to cover the cost.

I just found out a MemCard Pro 2 is being made that has PS2 compatibility in addition to PS1 compatibility. Probably do the same for that.

Okay SOMETIMES it's bad owners.

But most of the time it isn't, such as this: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-66893526

The UK's actually had enough: https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uk-ban-american-xl-bully-dogs-by-end-year-2023-09-15/

SayHeyyShohei posted...

people always say this but i tried going through the entire library recently and there's barely any games

That's the Sega Saturn.

I'm trying to start playing online but it's difficult to coordinate with people at a time that works for everyone.

I mean it's out of your control if it's chronic.

I always thought GlassDoor was more of a job research resource (where you go to find out about the workplace culture rather than where you go looking for work).

Are there situations where doing that can be offensive?

Bumpo

...is that a greenlight to have a melty and insult everyone?

I only know this game exists because I'm salty over the Daytona USA 2 thing.

https://youtu.be/SMpXQqmQHc8?si=5lf-DnMgtgzTyI1n

I was gonna make my own topic about Starbucks but I'll just ride this one.

Holy crap, I get that people need their morning coffee but GAHT DAYUM the drive-thru lines are unbelievable. Like don't you people have jobs you have to be at? Surely that trumps sitting number 14 in line to get a coffee...

FL81 posted...

saga sounds cooler though

I still use the term, I just use it to refer to an entire plot so I only believe there are four sagas in DBZ. It was just how I was originally introduced to the series (the website that allowed me to dive deep into the subject before the series was fully available locally generally broke it down into four major sagas).

NOOOO, I GOT HYPED ABOUT SOMETHING AND IT TURNED OUT TO BE STUPID.

I guess I had this coming but still.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


Yes but it means no one's embarrassing themselves getting excited for yet another round of drab schlock.

Do you wish other people would follow your example and never set high expectations for anything?

2Pacavelli posted...

Yeah Goku sacrifices his life multiple times for Gohan. And everything we've seen in the original content shows that Gohan loves his Father and strongly desires to make him proud.

And Goku never judges Gohan whether he wants to go into studying or into martial arts. He always encourages Gohan and actually has shown and given him compliments for how smart he is

DBFZ tried to make it sound like Goku was secretly resentful of his son's priorities but they patched it out after launch.

Thank goodness we're not on a pro wrestling board. This level of nitpicking would surely get accusations of trying to incite a flame war.

Gohan's daddy issues always rub me the wrong way. Feels overly mean-spirited.

Thank you for calling it an "arc". I never liked how FUNi called the smaller story phases "sagas".

AlephZero posted...

>take out loans

>sign contract saying i will pay them back

>have to pay them back

wtf i blame capitalism

You took out those loans expecting a job market that would be solvent enough for you to get hired into without much difficulty so you can stabilize your income before the repayment process begun.

I'm sorry, this isn't right.

All I'm saying is if you refuse to respect a title out of simple prestige then I assume it's action you look to in order to find one's honor.

Now if we were to argue that prestige grants opportunities to do more than one of average standing and thus good works that were performed still required being in a place of nobility, reducing the merit of the act as a whole then I could hear it out.

Funkydog posted...

As a brit I don't respect any royal member nor will I ever.

Diana was a nice person, though.

Lillymon posted...

You don't. The guy's a complete nutjob.

To be fair I like Camilla less.

(topic)