CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online log in · register
Home › Dennis Bailey2 › Posts

Posts by Dennis Bailey2

81 posts shown.

Are lefties actually smarter? in Psychology ·
rustylynx70 said:Hey everyone, I consider myself one of the leftists. I wouldn't necessarily claim we’re more intelligent, but maybe it's more about being open-minded toward different ideas. One thing I've noticed about people on the left—well, at least among my circle—is that we tend to have several books going at once. Some of us might lean more toward art, music, or film, though I suppose that really just depends on an individual's specific interests. Also, funny enough, whenever I hold a utensil in my right hand, food almost seems to lose its flavor or scent, but that's probably just because our brain centers are located on the opposite side of the right-handed folks...

Hmm, interesting. I must be a closet Leftist then, since I also juggle multiple books at the same time. 🙄 My mother, on the other hand, thinks she’s some kind of Leftist, but she barely finishes two books a year, and certainly not simultaneously. She was an incredibly active kid, but now? Not hyperactive in the slightest. Plus, she’s an engineer with a knack for math and physics, yet she can barely tell the difference between a fine art painting and a comic book. And her IQ isn't High IQ either; it's closer to 108.

That bit about the loss of taste is intriguing. Personally, when I eat with my left hand (which I have to do out of politeness, being a right-hander), the food tastes exactly the same as when I use my right. 😂

Jokes aside, I suspect this whole topic is built on nothing but stereotypes (if it weren't, there would probably be a link to a study already). There are only two practical takeaways here: first, Leftists might have an edge in certain sports or games simply because they're rarer, meaning opponents aren't as prepared for them. Second, life is objectively more ergonomically difficult for them because, unfortunately, we've designed the entire world to accommodate right-handers.
What are we even fighting for? in Psychology ·
Paul Thompson3 said:I can’t just cruise through life without asking "why"—it’s impossible for me—and I guess we all hit that wall eventually.
Sure, you can have it all—an entire empire of smiles—but they’ll still let you down, and they’ll still hurt you.🙂
The truth is, nobody actually has a smart answer for this—mostly because one doesn't exist.
People only keep going because they’re terrified of being alone at the end.
Anyway, thanks for the input, everyone.

Look, your main goal should probably be learning English well enough so you don't write "they will let my down"—unless that was some intentional anatomical joke? 😁 Or maybe it's just foreign words getting mixed up; instead of "empire," you wrote "empirium" (though maybe you meant empirical evidence of a smile, but that makes zero sense in this context)?

There is a smart answer, you lazy bum. People live because living is fun! 👍 If you aren't some coward who avoids Borba and acts like a total wimp who wants to slit their own throat every time they lose, then every new day is a new victory! 👍
All this whining here comes from a simple urge: a lazy ass looking for some deep, cosmic reason beyond the logic of the universe just to get out of bed. If people weren't so lazy, just wanting to "go do something" would be a perfectly valid reason, just like any other.

Live only because I'm afraid of ending my own life!? FAKING HELL NO!!!!!! Imagine if I dropped dead today?! Total disaster!!!! Who knows who's going to win the next championship in the EP?! Will Asaf finally crush Bolt?! How will I know if the new openSUSE outperforms the new Ubuntu?! What happens to my latest project?!
Evil people in the world!? Horrible, desperate, annoying!? Like Leone Glembay would say—just spit on it and move on!!!

The meaning of my life? On my last day, turning around, taking Death to Hand and Say and saying, "WHAT A FUCKING GOOD RIDE... But to die, is going to be a fucking hell of an adventure!!!!"

Rista, I feel for you and your depression... but I also feel bad that I won't be around for another 300 years to see what the world becomes; all that new tech, the breakthroughs, the ideas, the colonization of new planets... 😢

And stop listening to that garbage music. Listen to something good and motivating instead of that lamenting crap. I suggest Falchion and Dragonforac. If you're feeling nostalgic, go with Manowar.
Falling in love: a sign of weakness? in Psychology & Therapy ·
Look... love is just a feeling. Feelings are driven by chemistry, and chemistry is volatile. By its very nature, love eventually fades.

You don't label someone a "bad person" simply because they stopped feeling that spark. That isn't the issue. The problem is how that shift actually plays out in reality; people are judged as "bad" because of their behavior after the feelings die.

An incredibly small percentage of people, when the love dries up, actually sit their partner down and say, "Look, I don't feel this anymore. We need to go our separate ways." That would be the decent way to handle it.

But that’s rarely the scenario. Usually, it's much uglier. Driven by selfishness—mostly concerns over money, stability, or security—people stay tethered to a partner they no longer care for while simultaneously hunting for someone new. That's where the cheating starts. And since cheating is inherently "bad," that’s how the person earns their reputation as a "bad person." 🤷

There is also a subtle but vital distinction between "love" and "infatuation." To put it bluntly: how "right" is it to blow up a marriage, a family, or something built over years of solid effort, just because you caught a fleeting crush on someone else?
Falling in love: a sign of weakness? in Psychology & Therapy ·
Kenneth Castillo96 said:To be honest, it’s obvious to me that I’m just hesitating. Besides, I don't think I even stand a chance with her, and frankly, none of this seems worth the effort anyway...

I suspect she’d just tell me I’ve completely deluded myself... and that she doesn't want to see, speak to, or hear from me ever again... I would feel utterly humiliated... and that is exactly what I am trying to avoid...

🤦

I suspect this conversation might be drifting away from the intended scope of this specific sub-forum. In fact, I am fairly certain this topic belongs elsewhere—perhaps moved to a section where people will actually be interested in reading it and sharing their own perspectives and experiences.

Let's be real: this section isn't a help desk for learning how to cheat on your wife! 😍 If your goal is just to brag about having a huge ego or a big ego, go talk to the FBI or some legal experts instead. 😍
What are we even fighting for? in Psychology ·
So much depression in here...

First off, suicidal impulses aren't actually a thing in the biological makeup of humans. Some animals supposedly exhibit it, but even that’s debatable.

Viewing the world as a horrific wasteland while seeing everyone else as repulsive—where the individual, the one who "understands," positions themselves as a moral compass, feeling uniquely "correct" or "phenomenal" compared to the rest of us filthy, corrupt masses in this nightmare of a world—that’s just a confirmation that life is a struggle.

A struggle where the "enlightened" one is ready to throw in the towel.

Dostoevsky was a drunkard who spent his entire life scribbling away without ever holding down a real job, but he hit the nail on the head: "If we truly understood how the world works and uncovered all its secrets, we would have nothing left to do but sit on the curb and cry..."

The question is, how do you interpret that? A fighter would say, "Exactly, because once everything is known, there's no more room for discovery, for the fight, for finding things, for novelty." Only a loser would read it as, "Yeah, everything is just so sad and depressing that I'm gonna go cry about it..."

Translation? Why the hell are you holding back from telling people they're trash? Just tell them, damn it, tell them and walk away. 🤷 Not EVERY person on this planet is evil; by writing this, you're implying that YOU aren't like those people. But if you aren't, then there are others just like you. Sure, nature is brutal. Death gives rise to new life. Lions eat zebras. So, what are you? A lion? A zebra? Or a scavenger, laughing behind a hard shell, just enjoying the ride?

Get out of the gutter and FIGHT. That is why life is a struggle.
What are we even fighting for? in Psychology ·
Patrick Peterson said:I neglected to mention that during our walk, the butterflies were stunning, and we kept a sharp eye out for snakes... but once we hit the water barrier, we had to stop and figure out how to navigate around it.

Actually, let me throw in another quote from Christian F.—*My Life as a Teenage Gangster*... wait, no, *My Life at the Zoo*...
"When we discussed National Socialism in school, I had very conflicted feelings. On one hand,
my stomach would turn just thinking about the sheer cruelty humans are capable of. On the other,
there was something comforting about people having something to believe in back then. During class, I even
said:
'I think I’d like to be a young person during the Nazi era. Back then, youth knew what they wanted; they had
ideals. I think it's better for young people to have the wrong ideals than to have none at all.'"

And let's not forget that Christian eventually overcame her worst addictions and became an icon—a case study for the greatest psychologists.
But she found an ideal that she articulated herself: "I realized that
high school actually offers something if I'm working for myself, rather than just for some useless diploma.
I read an incredible amount. Quite haphazardly, too. Goethe's Werther and more Werther,
that East German writer Plenzdorf, Hermann Hesse, and most of all, Erich Fromm. Fromm's
book *the art of love* became my bible. I practically memorized every page,
simply because I was constantly rereading it. I even transcribed parts of the book
and hung them above my bed. That cool guy really knew how to connect the dots. If everyone
actually followed what he wrote, life would have meaning... because you could simply grasp it."

Like I said, it doesn't matter if you're heading left or right; the main thing is moving forward, because even that leads somewhere. (And if you take a wrong turn, you can always double back and let everyone else know it was a mistake.)🙂

One of those superior books I've already managed to forget! Definitely goes into the "must reread" drawer. 😉

Look, one major hurdle in finding "meaning" is the simple fact that humans are pack animals. We thrive on being accepted by the pack. Being cast out of that circle is a fast track to depression—a total absence of joy and, consequently, a total loss of purpose.
Nazism and similar ideologies offer a person a sense of purpose, and more importantly, a purpose that is widely accepted by society. That’s what we call identity. Perhaps the crisis of our modern age is this vacuum of identity; everyone feels somewhat alienated from the pack, left to fend for themselves, often unable to even define which pack they belong to (Is it family? Friends? The city? The country? The continent...?).

Furthermore, the "my purpose is my career" mantra is incredibly dominant right now. But when someone finds joy in less "productive" things—like just lying around watching the clouds—they run into trouble.

And yeah... it seems to me... your purpose isn't just "moving forward." Reading your other post, I see that was misinterpreted: your purpose, and everything you're describing, converges on "conveying information about the path ahead to the pack" or, to put it more romantically, "leaving a mark behind." 😉 That isn't a bad purpose. And it’s one the pack can actually accept.
What are we even fighting for? in Psychology ·
Jacob Mitchell3 said:But how does one manufacture meaning when they find themselves incapable of seeing value in anything at all? How am I supposed to decide that my life's purpose should be, say, professional achievement, if I can't find any inherent meaning in that pursuit—or indeed, in anything else?

Regarding the concept of struggle—simply choose what is worth fighting for. 🤷 It doesn't matter whether it holds weight on a cosmic scale or within the laws of quantum mechanics; what matters is that it carries weight for you.

And what happens when nothing carries weight?

Look, in both of those scenarios, you really ought to consider seeing a therapist. It’s worth digging into why you're struggling with what might be—even if only a mild case of—depression. 🤷 The reality is this: a person's sense of purpose is entirely dictated by whatever they choose to fixate on in their life. I don't have much to say about this one. It’s just... there. No substance, no weight. Just noise.If you can't find any sense or purpose in anything, it essentially means nothing brings you joy anymore—and that, in itself, is a textbook symptom of depression.

Because purpose is so deeply intertwined with what actually brings you joy, we run into a fundamental issue: the "meaning of life" isn't something you can solve through pure cognition alone. I wouldn't go so far as to say that the "meaning of life" can ever be defined as the total sum of a single human being's entire existence. It just doesn't work like that.

Life isn't some static thing; it’s more like a series of distinct phases we cycle through, driven by whatever specific impulses happen to be pulling our strings at the time. You can't just wake up one morning and decide, "Okay, from here on out, I’m dedicating my entire existence to finding a formula that turns lead into gold," and expect to actually feel fulfilled. It doesn't work that way. Unless someone is profoundly, unshakably convinced of that singular mission—and stays that way for decades—it won't provide any real satisfaction. Without that deep-seated conviction, the project won't sustain you.
It might sound a bit naive, but all those "heavy" life struggles? They’re actually pretty trivial. Life is about doing what makes you happy. If nothing brings you joy anymore, then you’ve got a real problem on your hands—and you probably need to go find some professional help.

It follows that trying to condense one's entire purpose into a single point is an incredibly ambitious undertaking. Only exceptional people manage it—and they are exceptional precisely because they can. If you catch my drift, by successfully focusing their entire meaning into such a narrow aperture, they create an immense amount of pressure on a tiny surface area. They become incredibly piercing.
That also means those people are getting an intense, singular rush from that one specific thing. Most people find joy in a wide variety of things throughout their lives, and what brings you happiness shifts as you age. What excites you at twenty probably won't hold your interest when you're fifty, and vice versa.
Furthermore, you can’t just make a conscious decision to pick your purpose. That would imply it’s some kind of intellectual calculation. It’s like saying, "I should probably dive into quantum physics because that leads to fame," or "My life's calling is software engineering because the paychecks are massive." That isn't how it works. A person's true purpose is simply to ensure their existence is fulfilling. You only achieve that by focusing on the things and actions that actually bring you joy.

I’m not sure if I’m hitting the mark here, but you can’t force a sense of purpose onto a specific moment or stage of your life. You can't just decide it's there by sheer will. It’s a messy mix of cognitive processing and raw emotion—something far too complex to be reduced to a simple mantra like, "My life's purpose is my career." If building a career actually thrills you—if you get that genuine adrenaline rush while you're grinding at your desk, or if you look up and realize it’s already 9:00 PM and you’re still at the office because you were too deep in the zone to care—then maybe that’s it. That's your thing. But if that isn't happening? Stop pretending. Keep looking. 🤷

There’s also an inverse approach: finding purpose by actively dismantling the things that weigh you down. Take my own life, for example. One of my main outlets is animal rights activism—I work within civil society to fight for them. Essentially, I use my actions to systematically reduce the number of things in that sphere that cause me grief. Every single step forward toward progress fuels my drive; seeing even a small shift toward a better outcome makes the struggle worth it.
Look, this isn't some lifelong commitment, nor am I planning on doing this forever. Who knows? In twenty years, I might not even remember this phase existed—I'll likely have found entirely different purposes and things that actually bring me joy.
What are we even fighting for? in Psychology ·
Patrick Peterson said:Back when my daughter Vanessa and I used to go for walks, she’d always ask me, "Dad, which way are we supposed to go?"
The answer is actually quite simple: "Forward." It doesn't really matter if you turn left or right, or even if you actually reach a destination... the point is just to keep moving forward. Someone else might make it there, but you'll leave tracks behind you... no matter how faint, those tracks will exist, and eventually, they'll help others find their own way...

It's not a bad philosophy, but I see things differently.

I believe meaning isn't something you find; it's something you have to manufacture for yourself. Even just the act of traveling suggests movement, so sure, "forward" is a solid motto.

As for fighting—you have to choose your battles. 🤷 It doesn't matter if your cause carries weight in the eyes of quantum mechanics or the vastness of the cosmos; what matters is that it carries weight for you.

The trouble starts when you begin questioning whether your priorities actually matter at all by weighing them against the scale of the universe. That’s when you pause, recalibrate your focus, and then get back to work. 🤷
Can a name cause trauma? in Psychology ·
Here's a classic one:

There's a street in Cleveland called Brother Butt Street. 😬
And there are quite a few people sharing that last name, too. 😬

Alright, fine, I’ll admit it—this is a bit off-topic. And let's be honest, it's not even about the name... 🤣
redharbor9 said:That's pretty vague when you're talking about a specific situation, right?

In psychotherapy, you could argue that every single word spoken counts as an "intervention." That means a therapist would have to be hyper-aware of their goals and know exactly what outcome every single word will trigger.

I don't buy it. If that were true, they'd have to weigh every possible word perfectly, but in therapy, there are tons of moments where there just isn't time for that... plus you've got those exploratory phases to deal with...

It isn't vague at all. 🤷

redharbor9 said:That's pretty vague when you're talking about a specific situation, right?

In psychotherapy, you could argue that every single word spoken counts as an "intervention." That means a therapist would have to be hyper-aware of their goals and know exactly what outcome every single word will trigger.

I don't buy it. If that were true, they'd have to weigh every possible word perfectly, but in therapy, there are tons of moments where there just isn't time for that... plus you've got those exploratory phases to deal with...

I say it is. That is literally the job description. Who ever said being a therapist was easy?🤷
redharbor9 said:By the way, I think things would be clearer if we actually defined what we mean by intervention... To me, in Cybernetic Psychotherapy, every single word spoken is an intervention since language is everything in my field... but most people probably think it implies some "major action."

Not quite.

I’d define an "intervention" simply as any action or move that triggers a meaningful consequence.

In a clinical setting, you could argue that every word out of a therapist's mouth falls under that umbrella. That means the practitioner has to be hyper-aware of their objectives; they need a clear grasp of the specific outcome intended by every individual word they choose to utter.
redharbor9 said:Quentin Tarantino
Dennis Bailey2 I can't even begin to process this. Total nonsense.
Hell yeah, it can be done. 🤷 Look, let’s get one thing straight: you can't predict how psychotherapy is going to turn out. It's impossible. Period. Spot on.Look, you can't just suggest an intervention without having a rock-solid idea of what the outcome is going to be. You need to be damn sure there’s a massive chance it actually works. If you don't have that, you might as well just go betting on Yellow Mist instead. 🤷 Is it Red...? 🤔 I always forget.
That’s what I’m talking about. Most things work on probability—that's just common sense. Sure, you run into situations where there are zero assumptions in practice, but even then, you're working within a safe context. But Rebecca Scott3 was out here claiming 100% certainty on an outcome? Please. That’s straight-up delusional.

From what I gather, she was bringing up a scenario where a psychologist, driven by some outdated patriarchal bias, refers a woman back to her husband simply because "it's the right thing to do," without giving a single thought to how that actually impacts the woman.

My stance hasn't changed: when a psychologist finds themselves in a situation where they can't maintain total professionalism, they need to hand the patient off to a colleague.
I'm not a psychologist, but I do work in education from time to time; I have no issue stepping back and asking a peer to examine a student when I realize I can't be objective. I don't see any reason why a psychologist wouldn't follow that same standard.
redharbor9 said:You need to distinguish between a supposition—which is just the idea a therapist holds when making an intervention—and the actual goal they're chasing and assuming will be the outcome... You honestly believe you can predict the outcome?

Of course it can be done. 🤷 Let’s be clear: you cannot predict the outcome of psychotherapy. It is an impossibility. To suggest otherwise is to fundamentally misunderstand the nature of the work. It isn't a predictable algorithm or a straight line from A to B. Expecting a guaranteed result in this field is like expecting a weather report to dictate exactly how a storm will hit a specific street corner—you can see the clouds gathering, but the chaos of the moment is its own beast. Spot on.Look, if you’re going to propose an intervention, you need more than just a hunch. You have to have a rock-solid vision of the outcome and a high degree of certainty that things will actually turn out well. Without that foundation, you might as well be betting on Yellow Mist. 🤷 Is it Red...? 🤔 It always slips my mind.

Edit:
If a psychologist suggests an intervention that carries a high risk of catastrophic fallout—like advising an abused woman to return to her abusive husband, similar to the scenarios discussed here—they shouldn't just be "hoping for the best." They need to be absolutely certain of the outcome before they even open their mouth. Beyond that, they have a responsibility to implement actual safeguards. We’re talking about arranging discreet security or protection that monitors the situation without the husband ever knowing, and perhaps even without the patient being fully aware of the specifics. It is incredibly reckless for a psychotherapist to gamble with a patient's life on their own whim. 🤷
Alex Morales4 said:A decent psychologist or psychiatrist simply cannot allow their own biases to compromise the quality of care a patient receives.

Obviously, a psychiatrist's personal views can impact psychotherapy, and yes, they can be actively harmful to the patient.

In fact, psychiatrists should be held accountable if they act unprofessionally in any capacity.

I couldn't agree more. If a therapist realizes their own personal biases are getting in the way of the treatment, they have a responsibility to step aside. They need to refer that patient to someone else immediately. 🤷

Let me try to illustrate this, for instance:

So, let’s look at this scenario. A school counselor intervenes with a suicidal student by using fear—specifically the threat of God and hell. If that kid was raised in a devout Christian household, that fear might actually work. It creates a barrier, preventing the act through genuine terror. But then you have the flip side: what if the counselor avoids those religious themes entirely? If the child is so deeply rooted in their faith that divine retribution is the *only* thing keeping them alive, and the counselor ignores that reality, aren't they essentially leaving the door wide open? You could argue that by stripping away the only deterrent the child recognizes, the counselor is inadvertently facilitating the tragedy. Has that version ever crossed your mind?

Is this actually a valid question, or does it all just come down to the psychologist's own agenda? Here’s the thing:
If a psychologist decides this is the only way forward because they realize that kid’s faith is the only thing keeping them from checking out entirely, then the doctor is doing their job. It’s about survival. If religious conviction is the sole barrier between a child and suicide, then you work within that framework. Period.
If that fairy tale nonsense is truly the only tool this psychologist has in his kit for suicidal kids—even those who’ll probably die of laughter before they ever feel helped—then he needs to face reality. He has to admit his approach is a failure and hand that child over to a professional who actually knows what they're doing.

Furthermore,

How on earth does any therapist claim to know exactly what the fallout of an intervention will be? It’s pure hubris. No one can predict the ripple effects of a psychological nudge with clinical certainty.

It has to be based on something—presumably their education and actual field experience—because otherwise, they’re completely out of their depth. The whole point of calling someone an "expert" in their lane, whether they're a psychologist, an engineer, a surgeon, or even just a mechanic under the hood of a Ford, is that the person actually knows what they're talking about. What kind of fallout are we actually looking at after her intervention?If things weren't set up this way, it wouldn't matter if you walked into an engineer's office for psychological counseling or asked a cobbler to draft the blueprints for a skyscraper. It would be completely meaningless.

Look, a psychotherapist should be able to tell the difference between a patient's actual issue and their own personal baggage. If they’re too emotionally attached to their own convictions, they lose the ability to judge whether those beliefs are actually interfering with a specific case. It's basic competence.
Brutal arrest, American style in Close to Politics ·
electricorca112 said:Even if they can't pull it off, it doesn't mean they aren't actually there. 🤷

It’s not even about whether they ought to be responsible; it’s about whether they’re actually allowed to be. That’s the only question that matters here. All this other stuff people are bringing up—like waiting for tomatoes to ripen or worrying about how tall a kid needs to be to hold a nebulizer—is just noise. It’s all just a bunch of vague, pointless distractions from the actual point. 🙄

Look, everyone needs to just accept it once and for all—and I’m looking at you, Turbulent Fluid—there is absolutely no point in trying to argue that Krčmarek is some innocent little lamb. He isn't. But the real issue here is... When we talk about how the police operate in a true constitutional democracy, things get interesting. It’s not just about catching the bad guys; it’s about the framework that keeps everything from sliding into chaos. In a country like America, the whole point of having a legal system is to ensure that power isn't just exercised on a whim. There has to be accountability. You can't just have officers acting as judge, jury, and executioner without any oversight. I was thinking about this the other day while watching a documentary about civil rights litigation. It really drives home the fact that in a free society, the rules apply to the enforcers just as much as they apply to the citizens. When the police act outside those boundaries, it doesn't just hurt the individual involved—it erodes the trust that holds the entire community together. If people don't believe the badge represents fairness, then the social contract starts to fray at the edges. It’s a delicate balance, honestly. You need effective law enforcement to maintain order, but you also need strict checks and balances to prevent overreach. It shouldn't be an "either-or" situation. We should be able to demand both public safety and absolute adherence to the rule of law. It’s easy to get caught up in the heated debates you see on the news, but when you strip away the noise, it really comes down to whether or not the institutions are actually following the playbook we wrote for them. Keeping that standard high is the only way to ensure the system remains legitimate.It’s not even about pointing fingers or deciding who’s at fault here—it's really just about figuring out who's actually right. 🙄

Exactly. Deciding "who is guilty and who is right" isn't the job description for the FBI.

First off, the officers didn't arrive while the shooting was actually happening, so they had zero grounds to just "storm in."

Second, the footage makes it obvious the officer isn't following any standard operating procedure. This wasn't a planned tactical entry; it was an impulsive reaction driven by rage because someone was filming.

Precisely. ☕ Look, I’ll call the police and file a report claiming your grandmother is out in your living room firing a shotgun through the window. When the cops show up—even if they don't see a grandmother or a gun—they'll drag you out of your house while your kids are screaming, twist your arms, and slap on the handcuffs... all without ever explaining why they're there, showing ID, or even wearing proper identification or uniforms.
Brutal arrest, American style in Close to Politics ·
hollowtrucker77 said:Can you at least give us a hint about what kind of air rifle they actually seized?

Even if he could,

would that actually prove the kids were firing it?

And even if they were, does that give a cop the right to barge into someone's backyard and act like this? ☕

I don't know, I was under the impression we had things like courts, laws, and due process. Has anyone in this circus ever heard of those concepts? Honestly, it seems like the neighbor's only mistake was calling the cops instead of just handing them a heavy dose of street justice, calling up his buddies, and teaching that guy a lesson for failing to raise his own kids properly. 🤦 Just the way we do things back home. 🤦 Let him feel a little bit of that payback.
Brutal arrest, American style in Close to Politics ·
Eric Collins5 said:To put it bluntly? This guy is just some right-wing thug who finally got a taste of his own medicine.

😳

If you've got the guts, let's go settle the score with those left-wing bullies. 🙄

I’m sick of this country, but honestly, I’m more disgusted by the people living in it. ☕
Brutal arrest, American style in Close to Politics ·
crimsonorca10 said:Am I missing something here, or is my definition of the word "brutal" just a little different from everyone else's?🤷

You're clearly a West Coast transplant—it's probably 😬
Brutal arrest, American style in Close to Politics ·
crimsonfalcon23 said:And what's hiding behind that red Ford? 🙂

Oops, my bad—I missed him at first. That red Renault was a total distraction. I stand corrected. 😍

Look, if everything is set up correctly and those people WEREN'T cops, why hasn't the police department just stepped up and clarified that? Surely they have some way of identifying their own officers on duty? 🤷

And no, I wouldn't just let "officers" walk into my house without them showing badges and ID numbers—not that even that provides 100% certainty. 🤷 My dad’s a hunter, so I deal with regular inspections regarding my firearms permit. They always act professionally, show their badges, and explain exactly why they're there. 🤷
Brutal arrest, American style in Close to Politics ·
Eric Richardson49 said:Yeah, totally forgot about smartphones. Mind you, mine isn't exactly top-of-the-line, so I doubt it would catch anything that good.
But here's the thing: what's even the point of filming if the homeowner and the cop were just having a regular chat? Seems to me like either someone tipped them off that the cops were coming or the whole thing was staged.

And honestly, it’s starting to get annoying how they always lead with the fact that someone’s a veteran, like that’s some kind of ultimate shield... like it matters now. People in this country are just citizens like anyone else—their kids gotta follow the rules just like everyone else's, and they gotta answer to the police if they mess up.

To be fair, that guy in the sunglasses seriously looks like he needs to be on tranquilizers (but hey, you find plenty of those types in the LAPD 🤷)... I highly doubt the fact that he targeted a vet—or that someone caught it on video—is gonna change a single thing.

True, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't. Whether or not the guy is a veteran isn't the main point, though it certainly adds another strike against the police in this whole mess.

I think people are forgetting that the police showed up because a neighbor reported kids being shot at with an air rifle, not because the kids were shooting the neighbor with an air rifle. If you can't see the difference there, you need to rethink your logic. ☕

As for the footage, whether it was a phone or a dedicated camera, it seems plausible that once people realized things were going south mid-conversation, they ducked inside to grab a camera to document the scene. Unless you're suggesting these guys are buddies with the suspect (which is possible, given they weren't wearing badges, hats, or even driving a marked cruiser), I don't see how this could be "staged." 🤷

If someone knocks on your door dressed like a cop—no badge, no hat, no warrant, and wearing sunglasses indoors—how would you react? Would you just let them right in?

Exactly! 👍