Breakdown In Civil Order

[Politesse]

What do you feel should have been done differently with Nash's case?

I don't know the details of this case but I would say that releasing him (a violent, serial criminal) onto the streets was not a good judgement call considering he was "homeless".

So homeless people, once arrested for a violent crime, or for multiple crimes, should never be released?

And what are the quotation marks supposed to stand for? I'm normally pretty easy to get along with, but I hate political doublespeak, I hate dogwhistle phrases, and I hate it when people are coy for no reason. We aren't dating, we're trying to have a discussion. Just say what you mean, and we can evaluate the merits of your argument like honest men. What is the policy position that you want the county of Los Angeles to adopt?

 

[Jarhyn]

Irony is dead.

IKR? Jesus... @Emily Lake went from "criminals are not unpersons" to "criminals are unpersons" in the span of a single post

 

[bilby]

Another murder perpetrated by a "homeless" person

Perhaps some kind of law against masquerading as homeless should be considered?

 

[bilby]

Bullshit. Don't tell me what I think

I didn't. I told you what you told me you think.

If you are embarrassed by the subtext of your statements to the point of being enraged when it's explicitly responded to, then perhaps you should start examining your biases and improving your assumptions.

Forcefully repeating those biases and assumptions, as part of berating me for pointing them out, is just underlining your thoughtlessness and disinclination to reconsider things that you mistakenly take as axiomatic.

 

[Politesse]

What do you feel should have been done differently with Nash's case?

I don't know the details of this case but I would say that releasing him (a violent, serial criminal) onto the streets was not a good judgement call considering he was "homeless".

So homeless people, once arrested for a violent crime, or for multiple crimes, should never be released?

Where in my post did I say that?

You said he should not be released. That's all you said. On what basis would he be "kept", and for how long? You didn't specify, you just said that "releasing him... was not a good judgement call". If what you meant was "releasing him [before a well-defined period has expired]... was not a good judgement call, you should both say so, and explain what the circumstances of his detention should have looked like. What kind of law are you even advocating for, here? I can't argue for or against a position you refuse to define.

I ask again:

What is it you want changed?

 

[TSwizzle]

You said he should not be released.

That's right, that's actually what I said to a question posed about Nash. I did not say "So homeless people, once arrested for a violent crime, or for multiple crimes, should never be released?"

I don't play these games, jog on.

 

[Politesse]

You said he should not be released.

That's right, that's actually what I said to a question posed about Nash. I did not say "So homeless people, once arrested for a violent crime, or for multiple crimes, should never be released?"

I don't play these games, jog on.

So what are you saying? That Nash alone should have been held, but the law not otherwise changed?

I ask...

again...

What is the policy you want changed, and from what to that?

I agree that legal issues are not a game. People's lives are not a game. Imprisonment and murder are most certainly not games.

So what kind of game are you playing here? Insisting that someone ought to have been for imprisoned longer than they were, but refusing to explain why?

 

[Emily Lake]

Irony is dead.

IKR? Jesus... @Emily Lake went from "criminals are not unpersons" to "criminals are unpersons" in the span of a single post

WTF? Not even a little bit. Analogies are not literal. Stop being intentionally dumb.

 

[Jarhyn]

Irony is dead.

IKR? Jesus... @Emily Lake went from "criminals are not unpersons" to "criminals are unpersons" in the span of a single post

WTF? Not even a little bit. Analogies are not literal. Stop being intentionally dumb.

You are the one who posted with language likening humans to animals here.

I know I call some people "plague rats", but even that is in the immediate reality of their continuing shitty behavior.

You're branding people for life.

 

[Emily Lake]

Bullshit. Don't tell me what I think

I didn't. I told you what you told me you think.

No, you literally told me what I think. I in no way implied or suggested that violent criminals are not people.

If you are embarrassed by the subtext of your statements to the point of being enraged when it's explicitly responded to, then perhaps you should start examining your biases and improving your assumptions.

Forcefully repeating those biases and assumptions, as part of berating me for pointing them out, is just underlining your thoughtlessness and disinclination to reconsider things that you mistakenly take as axiomatic.

I'm embarrassed by your insistence on attributing malice to other people in order to bolster your moral high horse.

Abolishing prisons completely is a dumb fucking idea, one that clearly endangers innocent people. Similarly, having excessive sentences in prisons that are rampantly violent for minor or nonviolent crimes is also a dumb fucking idea. Reforming sentencing guidelines and how we treat different classes of crimes so that there's reasonable triage to balance the risk to the general populace against the type of restitution is a good idea.

But your approach, of just getting rid of prisons altogether is stupid.

 

[Jarhyn]

Irony is dead.

IKR? Jesus... @Emily Lake went from "criminals are not unpersons" to "criminals are unpersons" in the span of a single post

WTF? Not even a little bit. Analogies are not literal. Stop being intentionally dumb.

You are the one who posted with language likening humans to animals here.

I know I call some people "plague rats", but even that is in the immediate reality of their continuing shitty behavior.

You're branding people for life.

Unbunch your manties. I'm not branding anyone in any way. It was a fucking analogy. If you can't manage the cognitive wherewithal to understand it, I strongly suggest smoking a lot less pot.

I understand fully well that you called people who are not criminals sheep, and people who are criminals wolves.

Would you have them wear a scarlet C on their chest?

 

[Emily Lake]

Irony is dead.

IKR? Jesus... @Emily Lake went from "criminals are not unpersons" to "criminals are unpersons" in the span of a single post

WTF? Not even a little bit. Analogies are not literal. Stop being intentionally dumb.

You are the one who posted with language likening humans to animals here.

I know I call some people "plague rats", but even that is in the immediate reality of their continuing shitty behavior.

You're branding people for life.

Unbunch your manties. I'm not branding anyone in any way. It was a fucking analogy. If you can't manage the cognitive wherewithal to understand it, I strongly suggest smoking a lot less pot.

I understand fully well that you called people who are not criminals sheep, and people who are criminals wolves.

Would you have them wear a scarlet C on their chest?

Will it help your semi-broken brain if I revise the analogy and make it generically "prey" and "predators"? Or have you completely lost the ability to engage in abstract thought?

Also, to correct your failure to comprehend... I referred to "criminals" as being a combination of wolves and starving mutts, and even allowed that some "criminals" are sheepdogs. Are you capable of making the connections there? Or did you just stop engaging your neurons as soon as something triggered you?

 

[Jarhyn]

Irony is dead.

IKR? Jesus... @Emily Lake went from "criminals are not unpersons" to "criminals are unpersons" in the span of a single post

WTF? Not even a little bit. Analogies are not literal. Stop being intentionally dumb.

You are the one who posted with language likening humans to animals here.

I know I call some people "plague rats", but even that is in the immediate reality of their continuing shitty behavior.

You're branding people for life.

Unbunch your manties. I'm not branding anyone in any way. It was a fucking analogy. If you can't manage the cognitive wherewithal to understand it, I strongly suggest smoking a lot less pot.

I understand fully well that you called people who are not criminals sheep, and people who are criminals wolves.

Would you have them wear a scarlet C on their chest?

Will it help your semi-broken brain if I revise the analogy and make it generically "prey" and "predators"? Or have you completely lost the ability to engage in abstract thought?

No. The fact you are making the analogy at all is the root of the problem. You are stating that people who have been criminals are tainted with a label.

Would you have them wear a scarlet C o their chest for all times? Maybe a sign around their neck that says "wolf"?

 

[Emily Lake]

Irony is dead.

IKR? Jesus... @Emily Lake went from "criminals are not unpersons" to "criminals are unpersons" in the span of a single post

WTF? Not even a little bit. Analogies are not literal. Stop being intentionally dumb.

You are the one who posted with language likening humans to animals here.

I know I call some people "plague rats", but even that is in the immediate reality of their continuing shitty behavior.

You're branding people for life.

Unbunch your manties. I'm not branding anyone in any way. It was a fucking analogy. If you can't manage the cognitive wherewithal to understand it, I strongly suggest smoking a lot less pot.

I understand fully well that you called people who are not criminals sheep, and people who are criminals wolves.

Would you have them wear a scarlet C on their chest?

Will it help your semi-broken brain if I revise the analogy and make it generically "prey" and "predators"? Or have you completely lost the ability to engage in abstract thought?

No. The fact you are making the analogy at all is the root of the problem. You are stating that people who have been criminals are tainted with a label.

Would you have them wear a scarlet C o their chest for all times? Maybe a sign around their neck that says "wolf"?

Reading comprehension fail

Also, to correct your failure to comprehend... I referred to "criminals" as being a combination of wolves and starving mutts, and even allowed that some "criminals" are sheepdogs. Are you capable of making the connections there? Or did you just stop engaging your neurons as soon as something triggered you?

 

[Jarhyn]

Irony is dead.

IKR? Jesus... @Emily Lake went from "criminals are not unpersons" to "criminals are unpersons" in the span of a single post

WTF? Not even a little bit. Analogies are not literal. Stop being intentionally dumb.

You are the one who posted with language likening humans to animals here.

I know I call some people "plague rats", but even that is in the immediate reality of their continuing shitty behavior.

You're branding people for life.

Unbunch your manties. I'm not branding anyone in any way. It was a fucking analogy. If you can't manage the cognitive wherewithal to understand it, I strongly suggest smoking a lot less pot.

I understand fully well that you called people who are not criminals sheep, and people who are criminals wolves.

Would you have them wear a scarlet C on their chest?

Will it help your semi-broken brain if I revise the analogy and make it generically "prey" and "predators"? Or have you completely lost the ability to engage in abstract thought?

No. The fact you are making the analogy at all is the root of the problem. You are stating that people who have been criminals are tainted with a label.

Would you have them wear a scarlet C o their chest for all times? Maybe a sign around their neck that says "wolf"?

Reading comprehension fail

Also, to correct your failure to comprehend... I referred to "criminals" as being a combination of wolves and starving mutts, and even allowed that some "criminals" are sheepdogs. Are you capable of making the connections there? Or did you just stop engaging your neurons as soon as something triggered you?

And you called all of them something other than "sheep", and your analysis and analogy still manages to insult and differentiate "criminals".

You have some instinctive need to "other" "criminals", and you keep doing it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Just because this thread is titled "Breakdown in Civil Order" doesn't mean civil order should break down in here! Please quit making more work for us!

 

[Politesse]

I do apologize for quoting a naughty post, Loren, I know that just extends the modding work. Annoyance got the better of me, and I will try to be more careful in the future.

 

[Emily Lake]

And you called all of them something other than "sheep", and your analysis and analogy still manages to insult and differentiate "criminals".

You have some instinctive need to "other" "criminals", and you keep doing it.

No more so than referring to them as criminals in the first place. Criminals are people who commit crimes. Some of those crimes are opportunistic and produce relatively little harm to other people, and should probably not be subject to incarceration. Some of those crimes are opportunistic and produce a great deal of harm to other people; those criminals should probably get a combination of incarceration and rehabilitation. Some of those crimes are malicious and intentional and those criminals should be incarcerated or executed in order to protect non-criminals from them.

If it really bothers you that I identify criminals as criminals, and recognize that criminals represent a danger to non-criminals... well, that's on you. I happen to care more for the victims and the potential victims than I do for the perpetrators. I don't want the perpetrators tortured by any means, but I still place the safety of victims and law abiding potential victims above the liberty of criminals.

 

[Jarhyn]

Criminals are people who commit crimes

And see this right here shows your depersonalization.

See the active current tense, here.

It is not ""criminals" are people who have committed crimes", but rather "criminals are people who commit."

Compare again " who have committed" with "who commit".

This is down to your fundamental failure to observe what it is you are actually feeling and thinking as you feel, think, and ultimately put out statements.

 

[Trausti]

Criminals are people who commit crimes

And see this right here shows your depersonalization.

See the active current tense, here.

It is not ""criminals" are people who have committed crimes", but rather "criminals are people who commit."

Compare again " who have committed" with "who commit".

This is down to your fundamental failure to observe what it is you are actually feeling and thinking as you feel, think, and ultimately put out statements.

A small percentage of people commit most of the crime. Emily isn’t wrong.