And how do we get from “suspect” me to somehow believing I had actually claimed it?
And as an aside, it seems the easiest way to defeat this nefarious tactic of mine would be to not move the goalposts. Eh?
Well, Zebra asked you, “Do you have some ‘evidence’ that it was fake?” and having quoted him, you coughed up this hairball in response.
My bad for thinking there was some connection. :rolleyes:
Boy howdy, you put a lot of energy behind demanding answers to your bullshit hypothetical, while preserving deniability when the moment came when we found you didn’t have jack. ‘I never said I had anything,’ well then what’s the point of this silly anecdote? Either you thought it said something about the present instance, or you didn’t. If you did think that, then my response applies in spades. And if not, then you were pretending it did just to get a rise out of people, and then saying, ‘Oh, I never meant that.’
Head games, that’s all I get from you…
One thing to remember about Bricker is that he’s amoral. He doesn’t want to be right. He wants to seem right. He’s more than willing to win an argument because he confuses the issue.
Look at him pretend outrage. He’s not stupid, he fully understands what he did is shitty, he just is trying to spin the perception of it.
So you can respect people who knowingly put their lives on the line in a protest over something serious.
Wow, color me impressed.
Tell me where, Mr. Sharp Eyes.
Other than that possible for-instance, you know, this IS America. Supposedly we have a right to free speech and expression, freedom of assembly, all that shit. Occasionally someone actually believes that shit. Yeah, I know: fucking naive. They should have known better.
Good for you, sweetie.
You know, maybe these people aren’t professional protesters, or longtime students of the genre. Maybe they’re just amateurs who believe this crazy shit about free assembly, and have this wild notion that if you’re not breaking any laws, the cops aren’t supposed to do bad shit to you.
Maybe this was just something they felt strongly about, and wanted to speak out about it in ways that the law says you can. Maybe they’ve watched protests at abortion clinics, and thought they’d at least have the same rights those protesters do, because it seems those protesters never get maced or anything, even while making vulnerable people feel pretty threatened. Maybe they thought we’d moved past the 1960s where cops felt free to come down on a particular side, rather than enforcing the laws in a neutral way.
Yeah, fucking idiots, I know.
According to Common Dreams, the officer in the video has been identified as Deputy Inspector Tony Bologna. I swear, I am not making this up!
Here’s reality–if the cops aren’t being attacked by a person, they should be goddamned trained law enforcement officers and not escalate to weapons of any kind against that person, INCLUDING tear gas or pepper spray.
Period.
End of discussion.
Those cops should “face the consequences” of the “collision” of their power-mad little stormtrooper trip with “the reality” that this is a free country where peaceful protest (even loud, embarrassing-to-the-powers-that-be protest), is just fine, and be fired/penalized/charged with assault, as appropriate.
I do not care if more cops get slightly bruised in the dignity because of this policy. If it can be shown that fewer aggregate injuries to both cops and protesters occur when pepper spray is used liberally, I would happily reconsider.
But here’s the thing–the cops aren’t more important than the protestors, and that’s the part where your scumbag ass and I apparently disagree.
It was documented that a tactic the NYPD employed on protestors during the Republican National Convention in 2004 was to put undercover officers in the crowd marching down the street. This officer would befriend his fellow protestors. Then uniformed officers would grab this undercover officer, for no apparent reason and ‘rough him up’ a bit and cuff him. Of course if any other protestor objected to this they were arrested for interfering with the police.
Bricker, did you even watch the video?
I still think that either this is a different person using the Bricker account or maybe Bricker had some sort of mild stroke because this Bricker is not the Bricker I know. I mean, that question was like something a lawyer on TV would say, even though they know the opposing council will object, just to put doubt in the mind of the jury.
Not that he’s likely to care, but it really pisses me off that Bricker is willing to squander a reputation as an excellent poster when he actually has the facts in hand by pulling this kind of disingenuous bullshit for what appears to be kicks and giggles. If he treats his own credibility this cavalierly I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that he has fabricated many of the professional anecdotes he has recounted here.
Let’s start with the easy stuff. First and foremost, the mindset of the annotator is not an issue. If the annotation were removed, the video would remain precisely what it is. If an entirely different set of labels were applied, it would still remain. And it was the video you were asked about, the video you claim shows something that, apparently, you can’t quite put your finger on, but you are sure must be there. Somewhere.
You are at great pains to imply selective editiong, but all you got is your suspicion about what took place before the video starts, attempting to define it as an “edit”, and load as many dark insinuations as you can. But an “edit” is an edit, is an edit, it takes place afterwards. You have no evidence to support your insinuation. Save, of course, for your legendary ability to peer into the minds of others and ascertain what people are thinking.
So you are mounting an insinuation on top of a suggestion, that you “notice” other things in the video, “other things” whlich you darkly suggest have significant meaning. But challenged to point them out, you can’t. You start talking about what is not in the video, the mindset of the commentor.
Change the labeling, if you like, the video still shows what it shows. Label them women “Violent Hippy Protestors” and label the police “Nobel Defenders of Peace and Order”, the video itself is unchanged.
So, once again, bullshit, you’re bluffing. If there were something in the actual video to support your telepathic assessment, you would point it out, since you already claim to have “noticed” it. But you don’t, you don’t point to anything in the video itself, you go off on some tangent related to the mindset of the commentor.
You got nothin’.
No, no – let me guess.
You’ve lost all respect for me as a poster?
You’re the one that can’t understand the meaning of the word ‘if.’ The phrase ‘if you were to learn’ is to you semantically identical to ‘I swear on all I hold holy that this is true.’
But the problem is me.
Is that about right?
[QUOTE=Bricker]
If you were to learn that there was no mace involved – that the female protesters feigned their reaction in order to make it appear as though the police had used mace on them – what would your reaction be?
[/QUOTE]
But it was used. The video clearly shows that. And your “hypothetical” is clearly shown to be empty. And you have no comment to offer?
Did you notice, for instance, that the cop with the pepper spray is wearing an command officers uniform? The white shirt, that’s the uniform of an officer, the man assigned to provide guidance to his subordinates.
Did you notice that he approaches them, and not the other way around? Did you notice that he is pulling the spray can as he approaches? Did you notice that the woman he directs his aim toward has her back turned and is moving away from him? How do you move away from someone in a threatening manner?
So, now that your insinuation, bolstered by hearsay, is shown to be empty, what is your reaction?
But then the question becomes why? You’ve got a perfectly good thread going on with primary evidence available, why bring up a hypothetical about protesters acting like jackasses unless its to cast doubt by association?
I’m pretty sure everyone here would say the actors in your hypothetical are jackasses and deserve to be treated as such - the next stage is to say what has that got to do with current events?
Actually, I wasn’t at all sure that everyone would say the actors in my hypo deserved scorn. Look at the overall thread: a group of protesters conceive a protest where the goals in the protest are not known, and they imagine that the President himself, Barack Obama, will simply have to listen and acede to their one demand – whatever it ends up being.
And while many people agreed this effort was not admirable, others were much kinder in their assessments.
I wondered if this fondness would extend to a situation like the one I described – basically, if the attitude I was seeing was, “As long as their hearts are in the right place, these kids can do no wrong.”
So I asked that question, clearly identifying it as a hypothetical.
And certain people lost their fucking minds.
Yes. You have on several occasions provided genuine insightful and interesting contributions to threads. These make me think that you are someone who, although we have political differences, may still be worth reading. I do occasionally have respect for you as a poster, until you yank that rug out from under us.
Ah. We’re still doing this.
I understand what “if” means. And I know that you understand what “if” means. So either you were posing a hypothetical question based on an anecdote about something that happened a while ago involving other people entirely which would have amounted to a pointless and irrelevant hijack and which could have been phrased in a much more straightforward way if you were genuinely interested in an answer, or you were deliberately JAQing off to insinuate that the stories of police brutality may have been manufactured without actually having to provide any proof for the claim and to provide you with a level of unwarranted deniability. Since you don’t generally tend to be a blithering idiot, the rest of us are quite reasonably expecting the latter to be true.
Yes, the problem is you. Glad we could clear that up.
So, your hypothetical question boils down to “Are the people who disagree with me so utterly prejudiced that rational discussion is impossible”?
So what? Let’s say, as a hypothetical, that I am blindly favorable to dirty fucking hippy protestors, and inclined to accept police brutality as a given. If I retain that position in the face of contrary evidence, clearly, I am a fool.
But the evidence shows the opposite. Which you appear to be loathe to address, preferring to keep our attention on the dreadful injustice visited on poor little Bricker, who was just askin’, is all.
If this woman is pretending, that is some powerful goddam pretending! She pretends so effectively, it makes physical things appear on a videotape. Awesome!
Elucidator:
Oh, ok. We can only go by exactly what’s on the tape? We are not allowed to infer anything?
No problem.
The tape shows two female unsubs being detained and subdued with mace in the midst of a larger altercation.
Anything else you, I, or anyone else wishes to add depends on inference and supposition.
What’s an “unsub”?
Unknown subject. Apparently you don’t watch CSI.
Hey, just out of curiosity, did we actually ever learn what the protestors wanted, or was it just kind of a fun thing?
Actually, we really don’t know if it’s mace. Could be anything, but if we’re not making assumptions or inferences…