Whattrees

Words are tools. As long as both parties understand the meaning behind them, they are useful. If you don't understand the way someone is using a term, ask them. You don't get to tell them it's wrong, there are no wrong ways to use words as long as both parties understand the meaning.

I don't give a shit at all about your understanding of Communism other than as an example about how rude and condescending it is to tell other people that they are using words wrong. While I don't think you are an actual communist by my definition, you are free to use the word to describe yourself based on your definition.

How did I know this would turn into a parade of Russia apologia. If you can't see the difference between an army bombing violent separatists armed and given orders by a hostile neighbor and troops fighting back against that neighbor after it invades I can't help you. Maybe get your eyes checked. If you can't tell the difference between troops crossing into another country in order to bomb civilians and take control of land and troops fighting them back to regain land and save the civilians from the invaders I can't help you. It's not my fault that you are incapable of seeing the very obvious harm caused by Russia's invasions.

As long as you accept that there is a possible situation where fighting back against an invading force is good then your whole argument about the definition of pacifism is mute. You aren't one and have no stake in that conversation at all, other than to obfuscate your actual position. "Ukraine bad because west, Russia not as bad because they used to wear red. Find any excuse possible to have Ukraine stop defending themselves." That's all this is. Why not just have the balls to say what you really think? Why not just say "Ukraine should stop defending itself because I think autocratic governments that used to be socialist are preferable to western democracies because America bad"?

You're implying here that he failed to comply with lawful orders, which ones exactly did he fail to comply with? As I outlined before he was ordered to not roll his window back up again and he did not (even if he had, that alone is not a lawful order as no case law or Florida law allows an officer to order someone to roll it all the way down and keep it down for the duration of the stop). He was ordered out of the car (a lawful order as outlined by case law if the officer has reasonable suspicion that he is armed and dangerous. The officer makes no claim to the driver being armed and dangerous, much less having reasonable suspicion of such. This was not an armed robbery stop) and within 7 seconds was dragged out of the car. The driver never said no and was not given time to comply. While you must exit when ordered (again, if the officer has what he needs to make that order lawful), it is not reasonable to drag someone out after only 7 seconds.

If he had failed to follow lawful orders, why didn't they charge him with that?

Having distain or reluctance are not illegal acts and are not grounds for reasonable suspicion that someone is armed and dangerous. While a person intent on hurting officers would likely have distain, they would be more likely to act cool and calm until they pull out their gun as to keep the officer from sensing a threat and reacting to it. There are also far more people who have distain for officers and do not which them harm. It is not objectively reasonable for an officer to believe that every person who does not show them sufficient deference is a safety concern, especially not a sufficient concern to justify physical violence against them.

If he had wanted to, why wouldn't he have already done it? Why didn't he pull out a gun (there is no indication by him or the officers that a gun was involved)? Why wouldn't he have tried harming them as they pulled him out? Again, your what-ifs are not relevant to a discussion about the reasonableness of the officer's actions. An officer doesn't get to do whatever he feels like as long as he can imagine a possible harm.

Take a look at all of the officer's actions and attempt to see them from a reasonable person's perspective. He pulled over a guy for speeding, not armed robbery. He got upset only after the driver rolled the window up as he was walking away. He gave the driver only 7 seconds to respond before using physical violence. He punched the driver while he was handcuffed. He lied about a 25ft law and then expanded it beyond what the made-up law would allow. After 18 minutes of having him in handcuffs, he only started to write the citations, the whole reason for the stop, when a supervisor asked him if they were already done. Officers can only hold a personal as long as it would reasonably take to accomplish the goal of the stop, in this case to write the tickets. Every step of the way, the officer acting unreasonably. I don't care if you can imagine a different scenario where he might have been justified. In this case he was not.

You're arguing that we should defer to the officers because of a million imaginary what-ifs. That's not how this works.

If a person uses a term you don't think fits them you should ask them about their definition of it. It's not up to you to decide what labels people are allowed to apply to themselves. At best your complaint is about people not using a word "correctly" even though that's not how words work.

For example, you call yourself a Communist but appear to be supporting the government of Russia in their actions by attempting to discourage Ukraine from defending itself and its citizens. Communism is anti-state by definition, do I get to tell you you're not an actual communist? Or would it be better for me to ask you about your definition and get to understand the nuances of your position?

Do the people drafted to go across a border and bomb civilians and the people drafted to stay in their country and defend it against an opposing army have the same morality behind it? Can you understand how one of those actions might be more justified than the other? How one of them could be violence in the hope of future peace for others vs violence in hope of gaining more land and more bodies for the meat-grinder?

If your county was invaded by what you see as a great evil because of their actions against civilians (I'm just going to assume the US would fit that from your perspective) would you say it was immoral to fight back in the hopes of lowering civilian deaths and injustice after the land is taken?

Oh definitely, and the way we get that change is by instinctively supporting the officer's decisions because of a thousand imagined what-ifs. Of course that officer had to shoot Sonya Massey because she might have thrown the water at them while cowering with her hands up. She might have had a wmd under her night dress! /s

Here's a good breakdown of the discussions over the past 100 years including different types of pacifism. Only absolute pacifism argues for no self defense and no defense of others. There is also this that argues specifically that pacifism doesn't always mean a lack of self defense.

As you note in the next section, the 100 years was only in reference to the time since pacifism as a term was coined and I continued to talk about religious groups that have had similar options for thousands of years.

The Jains are only one example. You should probably talk to some Jains as there is much discussion in that community about this. Not all Jains believe the way you think they do. See here as a start.

If you're not even a pacifist, then maybe defer to them to define it.

Since you're not, I take it you agree with what Ukraine is doing then. Good to know we are on the same page.

Police don't get to act on every imaginable what-if, they must act reasonably based on the specifics of the case in front of them. Watch the video again and pay attention to the time in the body cams.

The officer knocks on the window and the driver rolls it down and hands him his paperwork while complaining about the knocking. As the officer goes to walk away the driver rolls the window back up. The officer tells him to roll it back down, the driver opens it some. The officer tells him not to roll it up again or he would be taken out of the car. Within 7 seconds the officer changed his mind, ordered him out, and then dragged him out.

Important notes here. 1) not rolling the window all the way down or rolling it back up while the officer walks away are not illegal acts. There is no case law saying you must roll it all the way down and leave it down. 2) while it's down the officer could see inside and did not note any obvious safety concerns. 3) he wanted the window down while he was walking away and couldn't see inside anyway. 4) the driver never refused exiting the car and was not given a reasonable amount of time to comply. He said something like "just a moment" when asked once and was dragged out within 7 seconds. 5) the officers don't later say that they had a safety concern, they say "when we tell you to do something you have to do it" in reference to the window, which again is not an order backed up by case law unlike the order to exit which again was not refused and not given reasonable time for the driver to comply.

You could always imagine a what-if that lets the cops off, but that's not the way the courts do or the public should view these cases. The primary officer was unreasonable at almost every point. Later in the video he points to a 25ft law that isn't in effect yet and then says that he has suddenly changed it to 50ft. He was on a power trip because the driver didn't immediately show him proper deference.

Then your definition of pacifism is inherently flawed. You condensed at least 100 years of discussion by philosophers (and likely thousands of years of discussion from Asian religious groups that have "do no harm" as a tenant) into a single "pacifism is when you never fight back or fight to protect others". Only one type of pacifism defines itself that way.

Are you arguing that things would be better if every country invaded by another rolled over and accepted the aggression of the other?

You also have a right to collect Nazi memorabilia if you want, doesn't mean I'm not going to call you weird.

Do you think there might be anything different between collecting swords and collecting guns? Do you think most people who live in urban environments have a need for a semi-auto military style, magazine-fed rifle? What about multiple of them? What about machine guns?

A bicon

Thank you. I saw it and immediately went to Miles Axelrod.

This isn't ground news, it is MBFC. They don't use AI for their ratings, and they aren't vc funded. Literally both of those are next to each other on their about page if you cared to look.

Once again, the bot is giving you free information about the media source in the bot with more info linked on their site for free. You are free to ignore or block it. I just don't understand throwing a fit about the existence of a bot designed to help users understand media bias for free.

If the mere existence of free and helpful information makes you so upset, just block it and walk away.

Media Bias Fact Check, the source for the info the bot gives is not ground news. It's one of ground news' sources. They are not connected in any meaningful sense.

Also, it's not an ad, it gives you all the information right in the bot for free and links to the site with more info for free. They aren't encouraging you or even suggesting donating to or buying ground news or mbfc.

Lastly, just block the account if you don't want to see it. I have no idea why people are so upset at a bot for giving them free, helpful information they can choose to ignore or block.