|
RNG posted:We had a small patch of woods between our house and the next street over and the kid who lived behind us stuck a bunch of penthouse pages up on trees so that the branches went through the vaginas. He grew up to be pretty much what you'd expect, A serial killer?
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2015 01:02
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 6, 2024 13:17 |
|
|
radiatinglines posted:It's no longer protesting when you're holding a gun in someone's face, it's loving terrorism. Does that apply to these guys? http://www.pbs.org/hueypnewton/actions/actions_capitolmarch.html
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2015 20:53
|
|
|
The Fuzzy Hulk posted:I didn't link an article, that was someone else. That article quotes the cops referring to that bit about the internet search as "innuendo": quote:"There is a lot of speculation and a lot of innuendo," Officer Mike Bowman told PEOPLE on Thursday, referring to reports that the child's father, Justin Ross Harris, did an Internet search for how long it takes for an animal to die in a hot car. "We are not releasing anything of evidentiary value. Our detectives are working tirelessly and with due diligence to make sure this case is not tainted, and that we're able to get an impartial jury." And if you've forgotten the kid in the car, and if he's in a rear carseat, you don't necessarily see him if you reach into the driver's seat, and you don't check to see if he's in there because so far as you know there's no reason for him to be there. Seriously, big Pulitzer-winning article about how a rush to condemn people in such an awful circumstances is probably not the right thing to do, just up the page a bit.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2016 18:22
|
|
|
djssniper posted:Kind of reminds me the last photo of Robert F. Read Not *exactly* the same thing, but a really bad day at work nonetheless: 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 29, 2016 18:16
|
|
|
Yvershek posted:After a time of continued insistence from school representatives, the company realized that they had an opportunity to unload a major liability. You mean, "The government threatened to just eminent domain the land, so Hooker realized that the city was going to do what they wanted anyway and needed to try to avoid the inevitable liability." quote:The entire area was then sold for a dollar with the above quoted clause. Hooker wasn't just "up front" about why it was such a bad idea. Hooker flat-out told the city that the area should be sealed off permanently, and nobody should be digging there. quote:The remaining land was later sold to property developers without any mention of the site history or the continued discovery of more barrels. This managed to make things worse as construction punctured clay linings that kept toxins from being spread by rainwater. What? The folks who excavated the clay cap so they could use it as fill dirt and punched holes in the side of the repository to run sewer lines were *city workers*, not developers. It wasn't unknowing developers who did that, it was the same government entity which threatened to eminate-domain the site *and* received specific warning up-front from Hooker about what was there. Hooker even *took government officials to the site and took test samples for them to show them how dangerous it was*. Hooker disposed of the waste in full accord with the laws at the time, the city said "Sell us that site or we'll take it from you," Hooker said, "Okay, fine, but we're telling you you shouldn't dig or build anything there and we're not going to be responsible if you gently caress it up," the city hosed it up, and Hooker got held responsible for it anyway. http://www.onlineethics.org/Resources/lcanal/ErrorPolicy.aspx
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2016 18:19
|
|
|
Alereon posted:Hooker is solely and totally responsible for the creation of a dangerous toxic waste dump, the city subsequently making additional stupid decisions to build a neighborhood on top of it aren't relevant to what Hooker did. Just because there wasn't a law against creating a toxic waste dump that would be hazardous for hundreds of years shouldn't allow Hooker to avoid responsibility, regardless of the opinion of the crazy Libertarian think tank you linked to. It wasn't dangerous until the city decided to dig into it for fill dirt; it was capped and sealed in accord with the law. Toxic waste is going to be generated, and needs to be disposed of, and there is absolutely nothing wrong, morally or legally, with properly disposing of waste in full accord with the law, which Hooker did. So yeah, they were responsible for legally and properly constructing a repository for dangerous waste products, but they weren't trying to "avoid responsibility" for doing that. They pretty clearly *weren't* responsible for the city punching big holes in that repository and letting a bunch of nasty chemicals leak out. For that matter, Hooker wasn't the only entity using the dump site to dispose of waste: so was the city. What do you think they should have done? Piled it into old ships and dumped it at sea, like the Navy? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_CHASE quote:Operation CHASE (an acronym for "Cut Holes And Sink 'Em") was a United States Department of Defense program for the disposal of unwanted munitions at sea from May 1964 until the early 1970s.[1][2] Munitions were loaded onto ships to be scuttled once they were at least 250 miles offshore.[3][4] While most of the sinkings involved conventional weapons, four of them involved chemical weapons.[3] The disposal site for the chemical weapons was a three-mile (five km) area of the Atlantic Ocean between the coast of the U.S. state of Florida and the Bahamas.[5] The CHASE program was preceded by the United States Army disposal of 8,000 tons of mustard and lewisite chemical warfare gas aboard the scuttled SS William C. Ralston in April 1958.[1][6] These ships were sunk by having Explosive Ordnance Demolition (EOD) teams open seacocks on the ship after they arrived at the disposal site.[1] The typical Liberty ship sank about three hours after the seacocks were opened.[1] Or stored it in huge unlined ditches like every coal plant in the US? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fly_ash quote:Constituents depend upon the specific coal bed makeup, but may include one or more of the following elements or substances found in trace concentrations (up to hundreds ppm): arsenic, beryllium, boron, cadmium, chromium, hexavalent chromium, cobalt, lead, manganese, mercury, molybdenum, selenium, strontium, thallium, and vanadium, along with very small concentrations of dioxins and PAH compounds.[1][2] Oh, on the subject of unnerving handling of toxic waste, the often-quoted "Ignition! An Informal History of Liquid Rocket Propellants" contains a bit about how they were trying to maximize fuel density impulse and someone suggested using dimethyl mercury as a rocket propellant. That's the poo poo so toxic that it killed a professional chemist who was working it it and spilled a couple of drops on her gloved hand. quote:Wetterhahn would recall that she had spilled one or two drops of dimethylmercury from the tip of a pipette onto her latex gloved hand. Not believing herself in any immediate danger, as she was taking all recommended precautions,[5] she proceeded to clean up the area prior to removing her protective clothing.[6] However, tests later revealed that dimethylmercury can, in fact, rapidly permeate different kinds of latex gloves and enter the skin within about 15 seconds.[4] The exposure was later confirmed by hair testing, which showed a dramatic jump in mercury levels 17 days after the initial accident, peaking at 39 days, followed by a gradual decline.[6] Well, anyway, they decided that using DMM as a propellant probably wasn't such a good idea, and took the relatively safer course of using plain old elemental mercury instead. They were going to test this engine in New Jersey, so they built this big set of baffles and piping to capture all the toxic exhaust. And then they decided to just go test the engine out in the middle of nowhere in the desert instead, where they didn't use the exhaust capture system and just sprayed mercury vapor all over the place. Phanatic has a new favorite as of 19:12 on Mar 7, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2016 19:00
|
|
|
Alereon posted:Hooker's moral and legal responsibilities aren't merely not to violate the law, but to actually dispose of their waste in a safe and reasonable manner, not merely according to the standards of the time.... If the city had done nothing at all and left the dump in Hooker's custody, the human cost would be vastly reduced, but there would still be an ecological disaster that Hooker was responsible for. First, don't "the standards of the time" factor into the determination of what is and is not *reasonable*? Like, if making it perfectly safe requires material and technology and knowledge that didn't exist at the time, they're morally wrong for the best they could with what did exist at the time? Second, non-leaking capped and sealed waste depository isn't an ecological disaster. It'a a small bit of land that you can't build stuff on. It's not leaking into the groundwater, it's not polluting the rivers or the soil, it's not making people sick or causing birth defects. It's just sitting there. If that's an ecological disaster, so is every dump site in the world, toxic or otherwise. Every landfill is an ecological disaster, every quarry is an ecological disaster, every mine is an ecological disaster. I mean, if that's your standard, fine, but appreciate that most people aren't going to share it. Third, the OEC isn't a "Libertarian think tank." quote:The Online Ethics Center (OEC) is a resource maintained by the Center for Engineering Ethics and Society (CEES) at the National Academy of Engineering (NAE). It operates under NSF grants. It's director "is a philosopher of science, technology, and medicine, and she chairs the OEC Advisory Group. She is Emerita Elmer G. Beamer-Hubert H. Schneider Professor in Ethics at Case Western Reserve University and Emerita Professor of philosophy. Whitbeck holds a bachelor's degree in mathematics from Wellesley College, a master's degree from Boston University, and a Ph.D. in philosophy from Massachusetts Institute of Technology. She was elected Fellow of the AAAS for her work in engineering ethics, and was a Phi Beta Kappa Visiting Scholar in 1994-95. Whitbeck combines research and teaching interests in the philosophy of science, technology, and medicine; practical ethics; and feminist philosophy, with interest in education of a diverse student body for careers in engineering and the science-based professions." Phanatic has a new favorite as of 19:59 on Mar 7, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2016 19:57
|
|
|
KozmoNaut posted:Mostly red meat, with a hint of chicken, apparently. Pretty tasty, too. Bullshit. I find it far more likely that nobody else in that video was going to participate unless he promised not to eat it. Also, read Stephen King's short story "Survivor Type."
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2016 05:21
|
|
|
The sovereign citizen angle makes me unsure whether to post this here or in the scadenfreude thread: http://www.freep.com/story/news/2016/04/04/feds-man-enslaved-sold-women-he-called-wives/82619500/ quote:The case started with West Bloomfield police investigating identity-theft crimes but turned into something much bigger when officers from the suburban police department raided the home weeks ago and found a woman chained by the neck to a pole.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2016 17:54
|
|
|
pookel posted:I'm not surprised to see creepy stuff in a creepy thread, but yeah, kind of surprising to see goons fanboy over reading about people getting violated. It's like praising the videography of that guy who taped Erin Andrews. I don't care how skilled he is, that poo poo is terrible. No, it's not. It's like praising the writing of a journalist who covered the story of the guy who taped Erin Andrews.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2016 20:36
|
|
|
RNG posted:New page! This thread probably needs a reboot but let's not make it by getting gassed. Speaking of gassed, The principal source on that is Ken Alibek, a Soviet bioweapons researcher and facility director who left and moved to the US in the early 90s, and then moved back home to Kazakhstan. His book where he discusses that leak and other incidents is very disturbing, but Alibek has more than a whiff of the snake-oil salesman about him and you should have salt nearby when you read it. http://www.amazon.com/Biohazard-Chilling-Largest-Biological-World-Told/dp/0385334966 Gruinard Island mentioned yet? Tiny island off the coast of Scotland, rendered uninhabitable for 50 years by British biowarfare experiments with anthrax in 1942. In the 80s some persons unknown started leaving anthrax-contaminated soil samples, possibly from the island, around England and issuing threats that they'd start infecting people unless the UK decontaminated the island. Which it did, by spraying a shitload of formaldehyde everywhere. Phanatic has a new favorite as of 18:07 on Apr 7, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2016 18:00
|
|
|
Mocking Bird posted:My undergraduate advisor popularized the term "Werther Effect" regarding suicide following in the footsteps of media in the 1970s and 1980s. Really, a cheerful man. http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2007/08/hong_kong_suicides_revisited.html quote:n numerous articles (e.g. here) the debate is whether a famous suicide incites others to also commit suicide (who would not have otherwise) or if it simply incites people who would have committed suicide to simply copy the method.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2016 05:31
|
|
|
bootsy posted:
Norman Maclean's book "Young Men and Fire," about the Mann Gulch Fire which claimed 13 firefighters in Montana in 1949 and was the deadliest wilderness fire until the South Canyon Fire in 1994, is an amazing book and every should read it. High winds caused the fire to jump past the men, cutting off their escape route to the Missouri River and they had to drop their tools and packs and sprint for the top of the hill. The foreman, Wagner Dodge,set an escape fire and laid down in the burned area but the others either didn't understand what he was doing or didn't care and kept running. There's a staggeringly haunting and sad song by James Keelaghan, "Cold Missouri Waters," about that fire, told from Dodge's perspective years later as he's dying in bed of cancer. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dztj4X3fQps The final verse is brutal: quote:And when I arose, like the phoenix And in 1994, when 14 firefighters were killed in the South Canyon fire, Norman Maclean's son John wrote the book about it. Phanatic has a new favorite as of 22:07 on May 2, 2016 |
|
#
¿
May 2, 2016 21:52
|
|
|
Besesoth posted:Turns out an awful lot of people like the idea of parlaying their own personal freedom into petty tyranny. When you put too many mice in a small space, they start to eat each other. When you do it with people, they form HOAs.
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2016 17:30
|
|
|
This poo poo went down over a decade ago. Guy calls up a McDonald's restaurant, speaks with the assistant manager Donna, and identifies himself as a police officer. He tells her they're looking for a small white woman with dark hair as a theft suspect and that she's probably working at the restaurant. Donna thinks that, yeah, someone like that works here: Louise. Caller also tells her he's speaking with her senior manager on another line. The caller tells Donna that there are no cops available to actually go down there and arrest her, so Donna should strip search her. Donna thinks this sounds perfectly reasonable, so orders Lousie into her office and tells her take her clothes off, in front of a second assistant manager, Kim, who serves as a witness. Kim also thinks this sounds fine. Kim eventually leaves to, you know, run a restaurant, and the caller tells Donna that she needs to bring in someone else she trusts to help with the investigation. At this point, Louise is naked but has covered herself with an apron. Donna calls one of the cooks back, and the caller orders him to remove Louise's apron. The cook is the first person in this bit to think that something doesn't sound right, and refuses, but still doesn't call the cops, and goes back out to cook burgers. At this point, Donna *calls her fiance*, Walter, for help, who drives to the restaurant. Donna goes out to, again, run a restaurant, leaving her equally-gullible fiancee on the phone with the caller, in the office with naked Louise. At the caller's direction, Walter orders Louise to dance, to jump up and down, to kiss him, submit to a spanking, spread her vagina, and eventually to give him a blowjob. Louise is cowed into obedience by the caller who, again, says he's a cop and says that she'll be in worse trouble if she disobeys. Donna returns to the office intermittently while this is all transpiring. After the blowjob, Walter starts feeling uneasy and wants to leave, the caller says he can't leave unless they find a replacement for him. He leaves, Donna grabs Thomas, the maintenance guy, who refuses to assist with this bullshit. Donna finally gets suspicious and calls her manager who says "What are you talking about? I was asleep, I'm not talking with any cop on another line." Then she realizes it was all a setup and starts crying. After three and a half hours, Louise gets to put her clothes back on and leave the office. All of this was recorded on the restaurant's security cameras. After watching the tape, Donna decides not to marry Walter. Walter is charged with sexual assault and eventually gets sentenced to 5 years. Donna gets fired for violating corporate policies against strip searches. The caller was probably a guy named David Stewart, who was arrested and tried but found not guilty due to there being little direct evidence; he was suspected of making a whole bunch of calls along these lines, and the calls stopped after he was arrested. quote:At a McDonald's in Hinesville, Ga., a caller convinced a 55-year-old janitor to do a cavity search of a 19-year-old cashier, while in Fargo, N.D., a manager at a local Burger King strip-searched a 17-year-old female employee. McDonalds also lost big in subsequent lawsuits. I'm not sure what the most disturbing bit about this is: that people are so reflexively submissive to authority that they will kidnap and sexually assault another human being because an anonymous voice on the other end of a phone tells them to (or will submit to the same because of that voice), or that that McDonald's has to have a *corporate policy against strip-searches*. http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/story?id=1728839&page=1 http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=3688563 Phanatic has a new favorite as of 21:03 on May 18, 2016 |
|
#
¿
May 18, 2016 20:59
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:That experiment was/is deeply flawed if you are referring to the Milgram experiment. It's one of those cases where everyone knows what transpired but they're all wrong. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2013/10/02/the-shocking-truth-of-the-notorious-milgram-obedience-experiments/ quote:The 65% headline figure, of people who followed the experimenters’ orders and went to the maximum voltage on the shock machine, implies that there was a single experiment. In fact there were 24 different variations, or mini dramas, each with a different script, actors and experimental set up. Context matters. There were variations of the experiment where nobody obeyed. If you set it up where the authority is a doctor, explaining that the treatment is painful but necessary to save the subject's life, you could probably push the obedience up to almost total. http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/01/rethinking-one-of-psychologys-most-infamous-experiments/384913/ Or this one: http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2010/05/the_french_obey_authority_figu.html quote:A French documentarian creates a fake game show (a la Milgram obedience experiment): he tells the subjects that in this game show, they are to shock the "contestant" if he answers the questions wrong. (Of course, there was no real shock, everything was faked.) The Stanford Prison experiment is another one that people get consistently wrong. It wasn't just a random selection of people who showed up for an experiment and were randomly assigned into one or two groups. The ad placed to solicit participants specifically stated it was for a psychological experiment about prison life. Those participants were given standard personality inventories, and all scored significantly higher on significantly higher on narcissism, social dominance, aggression, Machiavellianism and authoritarianism. So maybe that study tells you something about the sort of people who want to participate in simulations about prison life, but it doesn't tell you much about the general population.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2016 22:49
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:Milgram had another experiment where he had his graduate students go on the subway and ask strangers for their seats. The only thing they were allowed to say if asked about it was "because I would like to sit there." Nope, that's not true. Again, there were multiple scripts. In one script, the experimenter offered no justification. Because in that case it's possible that people would surrender their seats because they assumed the person really needed it, there was another script where the experimenter announced right up front that he wanted the seat for a non-necessary reason (The script was actually "Excuse me, may I please have your seat? I can't read my book standing up." In the third setup, there were two experimenters working together. The first asks the second, "Do you think it would be all right if I asked someone for a seat?", the second says "I don't know," and then first proceeds to then do that. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/14/nyregion/excuse-me-may-i-have-your-seat.html quote:Several of them were attacked physically. Not sure about that. Milgram had another experiment involving experimenters cutting into lines at counters, some of those reactions did involve physically ejecting the line-cutter from the line.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2016 23:11
|
|
|
Pigsfeet on Rye posted:Looking at the Piper Alpha story and thinking about fire at sea brought up this memory from USN boot camp: the classic Trial By Fire, about the USS Forrestal and the horrendous fire onboard during Vietnam. In 1975 the cruiser Belknap collided with the carrier John F. Kennedy, cutting open the carrier's jet fuel transfer lines and pouring burning fuel down over the cruiser. It's pretty amazing that only 8 people died, and it's testament to the Navy re-learning a lot of lessons during the Forrestal fire. After the fire was out, the Belknap looked like this: 
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2016 17:48
|
|
|
Pigsfeet on Rye posted:Holy poo poo, I knew about the Forrestal, Enterprise, and Oriskany fires, but never about that. Yeah, whenever superstructure melts it's a bad day. The JAG investigation is here: http://www.jag.navy.mil/library/investigations/USS%20KENNEDY%20AND%20BELKNAP%2075%20PT%201.pdf http://www.jag.navy.mil/library/investigations/USS%20KENNEDY%20AND%20BELKNAP%2075%20PT%202.pdf
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2016 19:50
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:Its a fine distinction and doesn't necessarily mean a whole lot in every case, but I think this is where we get a lot of the confusion about whether someone is "mentally ill" or not. For instance, someone may have been diagnosed by their psychiatrist as having narcissistic personality disorder, but simply having that disorder wouldn't make one mentally ill in the eyes of most professionals. The very concept of "mentally ill" defies easy description. Homosexuality wasn't removed from the DSM until the DSM 4. And the DSM is mainly about billing, anyway. Things are even worse once you get the law involved: http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2010/05/ny_v_junco_sex_civil_hygiene_a.html quote:In any event, the state of New York is pleased to offer civil commitment of sex offenders. How do you determine who is "a sex offender requiring civil management?" According to the Mental Hygiene Law (yes, it's called that) Also: http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/sexual-offenses/political-diagnosis-psychiatry-service-law http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2009/04/what_should_count_as_a_mental.html
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2016 23:05
|
|
|
Kiss Kiss Bang Bang posted:Not to derail this charming line of discussion, but there has been a development on one of the missing hikers we were talking about during the "gently caress the woods" portion of this thread. This is why when the one dummy in Blair Witch Project said something to the effect of "There are no areas of wilderness in the United States big enough to get lost in anymore" I instantly wanted them all to die horribly.
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2016 21:11
|
|
|
Geniasis posted:If someone can tell me why this doesn't spell extinction for our species I would really REALLY appreciate it. Because our species was around for a really long time before antibiotics were even invented. Also, phage therapy, the use of viruses that infect specific bacteria, is potentially wonderful for antibiotic-resistant strains. The advent of antibiotics pretty much curtailed that research in the west, but the Soviet Union went hard into it and have been using it for decades. One big advantage is that phages are highly specific, so the side-effects of broad-spectrum antibiotics that kill off your healthy gut flora don't happen, and you also don't breed immune strains of the bacteria you're *not* targeting. And the phages themselves also evolve, so it's not a case of a static antibiotic that the bacteria evolves a defense against. There's an evolutionary pressure on the bacteria to defend against the phage, but there's an evolutionary pressure on the phage to get around the bacteria's new defenses. The disadvantage is that phages are highly specific, so you often need to make a culture of the organism that's infected the patient or deliver a cocktail of different phage strains, and current FDA regulations make the latter approach basically impossible. Good background here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3278644/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3400130/ quote:At its best, phage therapy is a form of personalized medicine because specific phages (usually multiple phages combined as a multivalent cocktail) are carefully selected to treat a patient's specific bacterial infection. Success rates from these customized phages are five- to sixfold higher than that of standardized phage products (Zhukov-Verezhnikov et al., 1978), so the use of personalized phage cocktails has historically been crucial for effective treatment. Nonetheless, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which will decide the fate of phage therapy in the United States and influence its adoption around the world, has not been receptive to this idea. To date, the FDA has essentially grafted its traditional antibiotic regulatory protocols onto phage therapy, meaning that all components of a phage cocktail must go through individual clinical trials and that the composition of these cocktails cannot be altered without re-approval (Thiel, 2004). This policy does not reflect the fundamental differences between phages and antibiotics, and would, if perpetuated, likely render phage therapy both prohibitively expensive and significantly less effective.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2016 19:15
|
|
|
Thwomp posted:Nothing is as unnerving to me as Polio. gently caress future super-bugs, Polio was (actually still is) just a horrifying disease. And it's totally mankind's fault for pooping in your own water supply. And don't forget how, even if you escape the initial infection unscathed, it can return 30 years later to take another try at loving you up.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2016 00:48
|
|
|
That drat Satyr posted:In what crazy world do you get arrested for wearing a shirt. quote:A man from Worcester has been arrested by police today (Monday 30 May) after reports were received of a man wearing a t-shirt printed with offensive comments relating to the Hillsborough disaster. Jesus. How many forums posters would we have left if that were the law in America and it were consistently enforced? I've rarely been so happy for the 1st Amendment.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2016 16:28
|
|
|
Jedit posted:What do you think would happen in the US if you walked through a Jewish area wearing a t-shirt that read "Kikes did 9/11, bring back the gas chambers"? You would not legally be arrested, and if you were arrested you'd have cause for a massive civil rights lawsuit because you're engaged in clearly protected speech. Brandenburg v. Ohio. It's not even a close call, it's a clearly established right and you could sue even the individual cops who arrested you and they wouldn't have any immunity. You might be assaulted, but then the cops would arrest the people who assaulted you for breaking the law, not you for making other people distressed or angry. http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2016/05/antigay-preacher-carrying-deserve-rape-sign-gets-hit-bat/ Phanatic has a new favorite as of 18:51 on May 31, 2016 |
|
#
¿
May 31, 2016 17:13
|
|
|
Geniasis posted:I guess you *might* be able to make a case that the shirt in your hypothetical is calling for violent action against Jewish people, which would not be protected speech. Even calling for violent action is protected speech unless it's intended to and likely to incite *imminent* lawless action. Really tough to come up with a context where a T-shirt fits that bill.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2016 18:50
|
|
|
Geniasis posted:So the shirt would have to say like, "kill all Jews! Tomorrow @ 7:15 pm. On 5th and Main. Bring explosives"? Again, *likely* to incite. You're not going to incite a pogrom by wearing the shirt you describe anywhere, let alone in Crown Heights.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2016 01:04
|
|
|
Jedit posted:Which is why Britain is sane in this instance and America isn't. This guy wasn't arrested over freedom of speech. He was arrested because he was deliberately attempting to get other people to break the law by attacking him. Oh, that's ridiculous. First, no he wasn't, and if he was, he was doing a really lovely job of it given the period of time over which he wore it and the utter lack of attacks on his person that resulted. Making speech illegal on the grounds that "well, that sort of speech really pisses people off and makes them break the law" is enabling the heckler's veto, and tells people "If you don't like a particular sort of speech, just get violent when you see it, because then we'll make it illegal." Second, the law he was actually charged violating with doesn't even meet your not-very-narrow description.: "he displayed writing which was threatening, abusive, insulting and caused harassment, alarm or distress." Unless you're arguing that being able to arrest people and charge them with a crime for merely being insulting and causing "alarm" or "distress" is sane. Third, America has a "fighting words" exception to free speech as well, which means "words that by their very utterance are likely to incite an immediate breach of the peace." This guy's T-shirt doesn't even vaguely qualify, as again demonstrated by the fact that it failed to actually incite any breaches of the peace.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2016 16:29
|
|
|
Desmond posted:Everyone should see The Virgin Suicides. It's not even about sending your kid off to torture camp but keeping them at home and locked up under extremely bizarre religious paranoia reasons. It's fiction, but I wouldn't be surprised if similar cases happened all the time. The parents in the Virgin Suicides overreact after one of their daughters commits suicide and become overprotective of their remaining daughters. Then the eldest daughter starts loving strange men on the roof of their house. It's not really the same thing.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2016 18:51
|
|
|
Desmond posted:I didn't say it was the same thing, in fact pointed out it wasn't the same thing as being sent to camps. If you haven't seen the movie yet, the suicide was prompted by the parents' severe religious over-protection to begin with. No, it wasn't. The parents were religious and overprotective, but they're not abusive, they're not violent, and they don't go around the bend until the youngest girl, Cecilia, jumps out of her bedroom window after previously attempting to kill herself by slitting her wrists. Cecilia's suicide is never explained in such clear and facile terms; in the book, the boys across the street even find and read her diary, trying to figure out why she'd kill herself, and there's nothing it in that explains anything. Her diary entries (which also feature in the movie) don't explain her suicide. The psychiatrist's theory that she killed herself because of sexual repression is just as facile and nonexplanatory. The neighbors' varying explanations, that she just did it as a way to get a boy's attention, or for unrequited 13-year-old love, are just as facile and nonexplanatory. That's a big part of the point: you, the viewer, are like the boys and like the girls' parents, watching them from afar and knowing what they do, but not knowing who they are. The book and the film (which is a masterpiece, it's an amazing film that was infinitely better than the similar _American Beauty_ of the same year) have a *lot* more going on in them than "religious nutbag parents drove their children to suicide." Phanatic has a new favorite as of 22:38 on Jun 9, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2016 22:26
|
|
|
Mercury Ballistic posted:That was a fascinating article, but I have to state I don't really think he should be posting excerpts from inmates mail. That just rubs me the wrong way. It one thing for guards to read it for work, another for them to read and then post it online for the world to see. It's all subject to reading anyway. You can make a case that it shouldn't be a public record but they have no expectation of privacy in it and they know it.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2016 01:31
|
|
|
Maximum Sexy Pigeon posted:A Cyclone is the same as a Hurricane, with only two differences. A cyclone in meteorological terms is just a general term for an air mass that's rotating around a low pressure center. A big tropical cyclone in the Atlantic is called a hurricane, in the northwest Pacific it's called a typhoon, down in the south Pacific the general term is used for the specific. A tornado is also a cyclone, as are polar lows and big Kansas-style mesocyclones.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2016 04:25
|
|
|
Axeman Jim posted:
How does that work? As soon as one set of wheels shorts between the rails, you're going to get a '1' which doesn't tell you anything other than that 'at some point along this set of rails there is a train car.' Were the tracks subdivided electrically into many individual circuits? Or were they doing some reflectometry wizardry even back then?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2016 19:12
|
|
|
Pigsfeet on Rye posted:A guy got convicted for killing his wife 54 years ago. Bonus: he seemingly killed another wife and a girlfriend as well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSSkXGH8mNs
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2016 07:27
|
|
|
Jedit posted:Lots of men do. Probably because there's poo poo all to do in prison except exercise, especially the ones that don't use equipment. Serial convict Charles Salvador (formerly Bronson) was doing 2000 push ups every day into his mid-50s and kept getting into trouble for bending the bars of his cell. If you haven't seen the movie where Tom Hardy plays Bronson, do it. Story behind this guy, Michael Peterson, is that he's supposedly the most violent criminal in England. He started as a petty criminal in Cheshire and received his first prison setence in 1974 when he was 22. He got 7 years for robbing a post office; he stole 26.18 pounds. His response to imprisonment was constant violence. He attacked prisoners, he attacked guards, he attacked the physical substance of the prison itself. He spent a lot of time in solitary confinement. He got moved around from prison to prison, and eventually the prison system got so sick of dealing with him that he was instead committed to a high-security mental hospital. He didn't like being constantly drugged so he attempted to prove his sanity by the simple expedient of trying to strangle a guy who'd raped and murdered a child. They moved him to another mental institution, where he started a one-man riot and caused L250,000 of damage to the facility by climing onto the roof and ripping it apart. Eventually the mental health system got so sick of dealing with him that it declared him sane and he was sent back into the general prison population. He was eventually released in 1987, when he took up bare-knuckle boxing. Apparently he was once slated to fight Lenny Maclean (the guy who played Barry the Baptist in Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels, and a real-life bare-knuckle boxer of fearsome reputation). He adopted "Charles Bronson" as his fighting name after his agent rejected his first choice of Charlton Heston. This period of freedom (during which he supposedly once fought a dog) ended after 69 days, because he robbed a jewelry store to obtain an engagement ring for his girlfriend, who wound up testifying for the prosecution. He eventually got into the prison art scene, he's won awards for him poems and drawings, but this isn't a prison movie where the misunderstood bad guy settles down and expresses the beauty within; in 1999 he took his civilian art instructor hostage for 44 hours following a perceived slight, during which he actually managed to knock himself unconscious while ripping a washing machine out of the wall. He's been in solitary confinement for a total of *30 years*. He was friends with the Kray twins in prison and *they* found him scary. Bronson is a loose recounting of this guy's life. The title role is Tom Hardy's and he is simply completely and viscerally amazing in it. He's 100% convincing at being loving terrifying. Head shaved bald except for an old-tyme handlebar moustache, he exudes tension and menace. You distinctly get the sense that the guy has no limits, at any given time he could just decide "I think I want to beat this person to death with my bare hands" and do it. His modus operandi is to take a hostage, take off all his clothes, and grease himself down with butter stolen from the cafeteria in preparation for the all-out fight with the guards when they show up to extricate the hostage. At one point, he takes a prison librarian hostage and demands to talk to the warden and present his demands. The warden asks "What do you want?" Bronson's taken completely aback, he has no idea what to ask for, taking the hostage was an act of pure reflex. "What have you got?" The story's told in a frame that consists of Hardy either made up like a vaudeville act and playing on a stage to an appreciative crowd or sitting down and talking to the camera in the style of every prison interview. This is pretty much a perfectly fitting device. The movie opens with him, greased up, naked, in a cage, awaiting the onrush of guards he knows is coming. The movie ends with him with the poo poo beaten out of him, naked and bloody and groaning, in another, much smaller coffin-sized cage. The parallels with A Clockwork Orange are numerous and obvious. This is a very good film, and Tom Hardy does a staggering job. Phanatic has a new favorite as of 03:20 on Aug 20, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2016 03:17
|
|
|
Madkal posted:In the Band of Brothers episode they take people in the local town near the camp and force them to walk around the camp to see what was going on there. I can't recall if they made them dig graves for all the bodies found at the camp, but it is possible. That much wouldn't be a war crime. Under the 4th Geneva Convention, civilians under military occupation can be forced to labor. They just can't be forced to labor for longer hours or under worse conditions than the local standards. If they're under 18 you can't force them to labor at all, and you can't force anyone to work in military-related industries. In other words, you couldn't put them to work building artillery shells for your forces. But ordering them to dig graves for their victims of the concentration camp in their neighborhood? No way is that a war crime.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2016 00:32
|
|
|
C.M. Kruger posted:african_conficts.txt All conflicts. Look into the Srebrenica massacre, where the UN set up a "safe zone" and then stood there and watched as everyone in it was killed. UN peacekeepers are the best at what they do and what they do best is starting cholera epidemics in impoverished countries.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2016 03:12
|
|
|
WickedHate posted:It seems like a dick move to publicly label people suspects before at least officially charging them. How would you enlist the public's help in helping you find a guy you suspect so that you can question or arrest him if you're not allowed to say that he's a suspect?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2016 03:28
|
|
|
DumbparameciuM posted:Reminds me of thread favourite, John B Calhoun's Mouse Experiments. Yeah, like the Stanford Prison Experiment and a bunch of other ones that are well-known to pop psychology, the general impressions are wrong. Calhoun's experiments didn't overcrowd the mice on the whole, they set up a situation where more aggressive mice could guard the entrances and exits to living quarters. So you had a relatively few mice living in normal conditions in a low-population space, preventing the other mice from accessing that space and resulting in overcrowding outside. https://nihrecord.nih.gov/newsletters/2008/07_25_2008/story1.htm quote:Making the leap from mouse to man, however, was not so simple. “This is where it gets controversial,” Ramsden said, describing how other scientists tried to replicate Calhoun’s results in human populations. To sum up: Cram too many mice into too small an area, they eat each other. Cram too many people into too small an area, they form HOAs.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2016 17:17
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 6, 2024 13:17 |
|
|
Telsa Cola posted:Speaking of which, does anybody have the link or post speaking about the Stanford prison experiment and why it was poo poo? http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2009/11/stanford_prison_experiment_red.html quote:The essential conclusion to be drawn from this study-- the one everyone draws all the time-- is that this can happen to anyone. "Normal" people were incited towards evil. 75 people applied; Zimbardo chose the 24 for the study who were "judged to be the most stable (physically and mentally), most mature and least involved in antisocial behavior." Also, they were Stanford students, right? Not from ASU. (zing.) Didn't matter. It's probably not necessary to point out how important this study is in psychology and the conventional wisdom. You can't have discussion about a group atrocity without this study being invoked.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2016 00:21
|
|