So, to those who have recently started following me: Welcome!
Expect to read opinions you don't agree with.
If you find that you don't want to follow me anymore, that's fine.
If you feel like you want to block me, that's also fine.
Just please try to have an open mind, and remember that when I reblog something it's not always because I agree with it. Sometimes it's more of a "get a load of this asshole" or "huh, I never thought of it that way; I will give this some thought" or even "what in the ever living fuck did I just read".
Me when I blindly assume everyone killed in police shootouts did nothing wrong to tell the people who survived actual fascism that they don't know what fascism is.
Yes, how awful I am for not blindly taking your screenshots and very unbiased description as accurate, which you're providing in the context of saying that actual survivors of fascism are wrong about what fascism is and you, the privileged one who lives in a liberal democracy and is free to call the state whatever they want, know better. Y'all spend your time shrieking about ZioNazis while telling survivors of actual fascism to shut up when they disagree with you.
Yes indeed, I'm going to hell for lying, which I did when I said absolutely nothing about any specific person beyond "you're just assuming all of these people were innocent of anything and not dangerous". Show me where I lied about a dead person. Please.
If this is the same troll I've seen before, this isn't even remotely the first time I've seen them lie about the Good incident.
Like the time they claimed the ICE agents weren't clearly cops by saying the ID patches were unreadable smudges.
...Based exclusively on one blurry, low-res video.
Of course, given how dedicated they are, I assume they're either a paid troll or just plain mental, so
are on the table.
Trying to drive your car with a cop reaching in the window automatically puts that cop in danger, and I don't think I've seen seen any of them acknowledge that.
So even if we ignore the cop who was already in front of her telling her to stop when she started moving forward, what she did still could've killed a cop.
I think she panicked and lost her head, but that's still on her.
Is self-defense the reason given for the shooting? Yes.
Did the agent survive? Yes.
Did the driver survive? No.
What was the physical danger the driver faced? A firearm.
What was the physical danger the agent faced? A 2-ton SUV.
Was the agent within at least a few feet of the vehicle before it started moving? Yes.
Did shooting the driver immediately halt the momentum of the 2-ton vehicle? No.
Would there be a reasonable expectation that shooting the driver would immediately halt the momentum of a 2-ton vehicle? No.
Is getting out of the way of a moving vehicle the best way to not be hit by that moving vehicle? Yes.
Does getting out of the way of a moving vehicle require shooting a gun? No.
Is it possible that aiming and shooting a gun will actually delay getting out of the way of a moving vehicle? Yes.
Was the agent holding a gun in his right hand and a phone in his left hand? Yes.
Did he drop either his phone or his gun throughout the entire altercation? No.
Did he shoot her at least two more times through the driver's side window while he was next to the vehicle? Yes.
Were there other people near the agent when he fired his gun? Yes.
Was the vehicles accelerator pegged after he shot her? Yes.
Did that cause the vehicle to speed down a neighborhood street until it collided with other cars where its engine continued to redline even after it was stopped? Yes.
Was that a potential danger to the general public? Yes.
Taken from DarkMatter2525's analysis of the situation. These are the facts of the matter. Shooting her did not stop her vehicle and yet he still survived. Shooting her directly endangered surrounding officers and any civilians in the area.
I can see from a police standard, arguing this was a fair shoot based on self-defense due to the complicated nature of self-defense and policing in general. But the facts of the matter do not speak kindly towards Jonathan Ross's actions as an intelligent human being.
As far as her actions being on her, maybe, but she had pretty strong justifications for everything she did here as well when you consider the actual facts. ICE certainly is something worth opposing. Opposing it puts you in danger. ICE under Trump is not necessarily beholden to law and can basically do what they want to you, as far as we can tell. Would you want to be captured by what you viewed as the gestapo of a fascist government as a visible minority?
She did her best to avoid harming anyone to the point that her vehicle didn't end up harming anyone even without her controlling it anymore. Renee Good did put herself in danger though. Of course she did. By protesting a fascist government's state police. That's hardly something that I think anyone should be killed for. She's a hero.
PS: Don't reblog my Israel posts again or you'll get more of these. Don't mistake me for one of you just because I'm not a leftist.
>Was the agent within at least a few feet of the vehicle before it started moving? Yes.
In other words, he was close enough to make it extremely difficult to move out of the way in time.
The possibility people defending Good have consistently ignored.
Just like ignoring how she chose to drive forward with a cop directly in front of her. She backed up, and shifted into drive, and then hit the gas.
Y'all love to look for any excuse to hate on the cop, while ignoring the multiple extremely stupid decisions Good made which would not have ended well even if the cop did an acrobatic pirouette out of danger.
>Would there be a reasonable expectation that shooting the driver would immediately halt the momentum of a 2-ton vehicle? No.
I don't know about you, but if a car is coming directly at me and I don't think I have time to dodge, I rate my chances much higher if the driver's foot is off the gas pedal.
>Was that a potential danger to the general public? Yes.
So you'll get mad at the cops for shooting her and leaving the vehicle uncontrolled and therefore a danger to others, but not her for trying to drive away with multiple cops closely surrounding her, including one reaching into the car.
And, like I said, towards one right in front of her.
Interesting priorities.
>PS: Don't reblog my Israel posts again or you'll get more of these. Don't mistake me for one of you just because I'm not a leftist.
So you decided to come after a completely unreleated post just so you could own me, because I silently agreed with you?
I reblog posts from people I strongly disagree with on other various issues all the time. Left, right, center, authoritarian, libertarian, anarchist.
If you feel so strongly about this, I could just block you now so I never reblog any of your posts, even by accident, ever again.
Do you really expect me to take you seriously when your framing is that he had to do an "acrobatic pirouette" to get out of danger?
We've all seen the footage. He had to take like 1-2 steps back. It was not at all difficult for him to get out of the way. In fact, that was already in my fucking post. He spent more time drawing his weapon than attempting to get out of the way.
I'm not ignoring the choices she made. It seems far more likely to me that she genuinely feared for her life than he did. She acted accordingly. Her merely trying to escape arrest doesn't justify her being executed and I know that's true because you guys rarely claim it does. Instead you twist the facts of what happened even though we've all seen the damn video from like 5 angles.
The car was not coming directly at him. He had time to dodge. You're just lying and it's fucking insane to me.
Yes, I came at you for silently agreeing with me. Fuck you. No, I'm not going to block you. I want at least some of you to be exposed to outside ideas. Emphasis on OUTSIDE ideas, not my one single conservative-coded issue that we just happen to agree on.
That's okay. I'll just block you anyway. It's the only way to guarauntee I don't forget your not-so-polite request not to reblog from you.
As I said, I get plenty of exposure to ideas I disagree with, all the time. I created this blog in the first place partially to keep those arguments off my main.
And I'm not a conservative, as much as bigots (classic definition) would like to pigeonhole me.
Also, may I point out the rather blatant hypocrisy of saying that I shouldn't silently reblog you just to agree with you because of your own partisan Guilt-by-Association thinking, but implying I'm still obliged to listen to you when you disagree with me?
I'm more interested in the addresses of the heads of the company. If they're doing nothing wrong certainly there shouldn't be a problem with hundreds of millions of Americans knowing where they live.
If someone were to make all flock cam feeds publicly available, even for a short while, that could pressure state governments to grant public access through a database. At which point there won't be any reason to prevent them from being hosted on private servers as well.
Is a potentially buggy, long term idea, but an idea.
While potentially harming the long term goal. If I'm not mistaken, the goal is to have them up, but accessible to everyone.
If the goal is to take them down, bankrupting the company is your best bet. And while organizing a stock short is technically illegal, on a long enough time scale, a decentralized stock short can't be tracked. But that also becomes complicated in how it's organized.
So it basically comes down to bankruptcy through property damage and bury them in insurance costs. All by people willing to go to jail for the vandalism charges.
I'm specifically getting a cloth mask to wear on my bike so they can't as easily identify me and it costs them more for no reward. And air restriction can make the lungs stronger once I can really work the pedals if that ever comes.
Craig says he was criticised and controlled, leaving him with post-traumatic stress disorder.
By: Jenny Rees
Published: Aug 18, 2021
A man who reported his female partner to the police for coercive control has said not being taken seriously felt like another form of gaslighting.
Craig said his former partner "robbed me of my independence and slowly undermined my confidence".
He said police concluded no further action was possible after he reported her and she was not charged.
The Home Office said it expected all police forces to take allegations of domestic abuse seriously.
Charity Safer Wales said men were not always believed by agencies who may have no experience of the issue.
Craig - not his real name - said he feared men were still not recognised as victims of this type of abuse.
'Constant put-downs'
In his case, he claimed not all evidence was examined and some witnesses were not interviewed.
"People don't understand what coercive control is - it can be more damaging than a violent attack," he said.
"Bruises all heal, but this psychological abuse can be for life.
"It's like imprisoning someone, restricting everything they are. It destroys who they are - and that's not a gender-based thing. That can happen to anyone."
He said his former partner gained total control of his money: "If I objected, I would be told 'don't you trust me after all these years?'."
Craig said he was told to pursue his complaints through the civil courts or report it as a fraud, as organisations failed to see him as a victim of coercive control.
In the end he was supported by Welsh Women's Aid.
"Victims need to be listened to," he said. "If someone doesn't do that - especially the police, or someone in authority - victims are not being believed again."
Craig said at first he found it hard to make sense of what had happened to him and see it as abuse, which made writing a police report particularly challenging.
"She robbed me of my independence and slowly undermined my confidence with constant little put-downs," he said.
He added she would also gaslight him by denying things had happened, though he knew them to be true, and would use that confusion to control him.
"In social situations she'd whisper in my ear 'you sound like an idiot, no-one understood what you said, or 'your joke wasn't funny'," he said.
He said everything from how he washed, to how he made a cup of tea or drove the car was criticised and controlled, leaving him with complex post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
'Still frightened'
Many of the details of Craig's relationship resonate with Jack - whose name has also been changed for his protection.
"It's a bit like walking on quicksand," he said.
"You're never sure at any time where you are.
"I kept the pressure off by staying busy - I didn't stop tidying, cleaning, hoovering.
"But I'd be told I hadn't done the job right, or hadn't done it well enough.
"I would have a crushing feeling of being completely useless.
"I'm still frightened now and have a recurring nightmare of [her] standing over me, telling me I can't do something."
He said the constant gaslighting meant he lost confidence in his decision making at home, meaning everything was deferred back to his partner.
This was in sharp contrast to his high-pressured job where he made important decisions on an hourly basis.
"My friends and family have kept me alive," he said.
"There's been a couple times I seriously thought of taking my own life."
His experience differed to Craig's, he said the police took him seriously and were supportive when he told them of his experiences, though he had not pressed charges.
'Suffer in silence'
The charity Safer Wales runs the Dyn Project, supporting male victims of domestic abuse in Wales.
Simon Borja, from the charity, said: "I thinkĀ for some men if they do presentĀ toĀ agencies like theĀ police,Ā like theĀ local authority,Ā they may not be believed.
"ButĀ itĀ can also be that theĀ agency hasn't seenĀ thisĀ beforeĀ orĀ aren'tĀ sure what to and we would ask them to get in touch with us because we will help menĀ navigate the system as well.Ā
He said it was important victims' experiences were validated straight away as it can lead to many internalising the problem over time.
"We see lots of depression, alcohol or substance misuse, or not engaging with work, friends or their social networks like they used to.
"A lot of men tell us it feels like a pressure valve's been released when they do talk to us.
"There's more awareness now than there used to be and we do get more calls, but we also know that lots of men just sit and suffer in silence."
Both Jack and Craig agreed work was needed to raise the profile of men as victims, and increase the availability of support.
The Home Office said it was acting to support all victims and tackle perpetrators of controlling or coercive behaviour.
A spokesman said: "We expect all police forces to take allegations of domestic abuse seriously.
"The Domestic Abuse Act strengthenedāÆthe legislation onāÆcontrolling or coerciveāÆbehaviour so that abusers can still be prosecuted even when they no longer live with their victims and introduced a range of additional measures.
"In addition, the Home Office funds theĀ Men's Advice Line, run by Respect, to provide support to male victims of domestic abuse, and in 2019 we published the first ever cross-government Male Victims' Position Statement."
--
Over 30 years of research has established that both men and women are capable of sustaining intimate partner violence (IPV) by their opposit
Abstract
Over 30 years of research has established that both men and women are capable of sustaining intimate partner violence (IPV) by their opposite-sex partners, yet little research has examined men's experiences in such relationships. Some experts in the field have forwarded assumptions about men who sustain IPV-for example, that the abuse they experience is trivial or humorous and of no consequence and that, if their abuse was severe enough, they have the financial and psychological resources to easily leave the relationship-but these assumptions have little data to support them. The present study is an in-depth, descriptive examination of 302 men who sustained severe IPV from their women partners within the previous year and sought help. We present information on their demographics, overall mental health, and the types and frequency of various forms of physical and psychological IPV they sustained. We also provide both quantitative and qualitative information about their last physical argument and their reasons for staying in the relationship. It is concluded that, contrary to many assumptions about these men, the IPV they sustain is quite severe and both mentally and physically damaging; their most frequent response to their partner's IPV is to get away from her; and they are often blocked in their efforts to leave, sometimes physically, but more often because of strong psychological and emotional ties to their partners and especially their children. These results are discussed in terms of their implications for policy and practice.
researching parrying daggers as a fun little treat and i'm delighted by how much every single one of these things looks like it's designed to be as annoying as possible
this one is my favourite. it's called a swordbreaker. it looks like a weaponised version of snagging your clothes on a door handle. if you caught my blade in one of these things there isn't a force on earth that could deliver you from my fury.
āwe live in an uncaring universeā yeah dude and I live in an uncaring house. and I shit in an uncaring toilet. but do you touch an uncaring lover? do you comfort an uncaring child? do you guide to sleep each night a cold and uncaring self?
