JohnDoe123 is way too biased and shouldn't be a moderator

Brian Edwards6 said:

hollowmason64 As specified by:
... And honestly, sorry John, but you’re overstepping with all this deleting. You're acting like you know exactly what stays and what goes, even though Nick has already made it clear several times that we try to avoid doing that whenever possible.

I have no intention of letting rule violations slide without consequences. As for the mass deletions, I’ll make a concerted effort to do better; honestly, I believe my performance has already shown some slight improvement.👍

The simple reality is this: when you're looking at hundreds of thousands of individual actions, it’s statistically inevitable that a handful of them won't follow the rules.👍

I suspect the average here is likely equal to—or at least very close to—the average found among honest, professional individuals within the broader American population.👍

Michelle Alvarez8, electricharbor30, or me?😕

Nicholas King said:I honestly can’t quite wrap my head around what the actual issue is in this debate—I mean, I really don't see where everyone is getting hung up.

On one hand—and I say this with some degree of hesitation, though the logic seems sound enough—if someone happens to witness one, two, five, or even ten instances of certain police procedures or specific types of misconduct, it isn’t just unfounded to draw a sweeping conclusion from that... it’s frankly quite unintelligent. I guess you could argue that a handful of isolated incidents doesn't necessarily constitute a systemic pattern, but then again, anyone paying attention might disagree. Everyone. It’s always the same old story with these cops—it doesn't matter which one you deal with, they all seem to operate under the same flawed logic. Whether they are being overly aggressive or just completely incompetent, the result is essentially identical. I guess it’s just an inherent part of the system at this point.

Wait—hold on just a second.

It is just as fundamentally flawed—and I say this with all due respect to the fact that not every police officer is out there committing crimes—to prohibit anyone from actually calling out those specific instances involving one, two, five, or even ten bad actors. It’s not like we’re being radical; it's simply common sense to point out when the exact same logic—that "these incidents represent a tiny fraction of the general population"—is being recycled by defense attorneys in cases involving clergy abuse.

If a police officer holds a privileged position in society—meaning they possess the legal authority to engage in repression and take actions that "civilians" simply aren't allowed to—then they can’t exactly turn around and say, "Well, damn, it happens to civilians too." Or perhaps... I guess maybe a drunk George has just as much right to defend himself when things go south? I suppose one could argue that things have finally reached a breaking point—though I hesitate to say that too definitively without seeing how the dust settles. It feels like we’re watching a slow-motion collision where everyone involved is just waiting for the impact. Honestly, if you ask me, it’s less about a sudden explosion and more about a systemic failure that was inevitable from the start. I don't want to sound overly dramatic, but at this stage, it seems like the whole situation is just ready to boil over. What happens when Mary overcooks the rice?

Nicholas King said:I honestly can’t quite wrap my head around what the actual issue is in this debate—I mean, I really don't see where everyone is getting hung up.

On one hand—and I say this with some degree of hesitation, though the logic seems sound enough—if someone happens to witness one, two, five, or even ten instances of certain police procedures or specific types of misconduct, it isn’t just unfounded to draw a sweeping conclusion from that... it’s frankly quite unintelligent. I guess you could argue that a handful of isolated incidents doesn't necessarily constitute a systemic pattern, but then again, anyone paying attention might disagree. Everyone. It’s always the same old story with these cops—it doesn't matter which one you deal with, they all seem to operate under the same flawed logic. Whether they are being overly aggressive or just completely incompetent, the result is essentially identical. I guess it’s just an inherent part of the system at this point.

Wait—hold on just a second.

It is just as fundamentally flawed—and I say this with all due respect to the fact that not every police officer is out there committing crimes—to prohibit anyone from actually calling out those specific instances involving one, two, five, or even ten bad actors. It’s not like we’re being radical; it's simply common sense to point out when the exact same logic—that "these incidents represent a tiny fraction of the general population"—is being recycled by defense attorneys in cases involving clergy abuse.

If a police officer holds a privileged position in society—meaning they possess the legal authority to engage in repression and take actions that "civilians" simply aren't allowed to—then they can’t exactly turn around and say, "Well, damn, it happens to civilians too." Or perhaps... I guess maybe a drunk George has just as much right to defend himself when things go south? I suppose one could argue that things have finally reached a breaking point—though I hesitate to say that too definitively without seeing how the dust settles. It feels like we’re watching a slow-motion collision where everyone involved is just waiting for the impact. Honestly, if you ask me, it’s less about a sudden explosion and more about a systemic failure that was inevitable from the start. I don't want to sound overly dramatic, but at this stage, it seems like the whole situation is just ready to boil over. What happens when Mary overcooks the rice?

Nicholas King said:I honestly can’t quite wrap my head around what the actual issue is in this debate—I mean, I really don't see where everyone is getting hung up.

On one hand—and I say this with some degree of hesitation, though the logic seems sound enough—if someone happens to witness one, two, five, or even ten instances of certain police procedures or specific types of misconduct, it isn’t just unfounded to draw a sweeping conclusion from that... it’s frankly quite unintelligent. I guess you could argue that a handful of isolated incidents doesn't necessarily constitute a systemic pattern, but then again, anyone paying attention might disagree. Everyone. It’s always the same old story with these cops—it doesn't matter which one you deal with, they all seem to operate under the same flawed logic. Whether they are being overly aggressive or just completely incompetent, the result is essentially identical. I guess it’s just an inherent part of the system at this point.

Wait—hold on just a second.

It is just as fundamentally flawed—and I say this with all due respect to the fact that not every police officer is out there committing crimes—to prohibit anyone from actually calling out those specific instances involving one, two, five, or even ten bad actors. It’s not like we’re being radical; it's simply common sense to point out when the exact same logic—that "these incidents represent a tiny fraction of the general population"—is being recycled by defense attorneys in cases involving clergy abuse.

If a police officer holds a privileged position in society—meaning they possess the legal authority to engage in repression and take actions that "civilians" simply aren't allowed to—then they can’t exactly turn around and say, "Well, damn, it happens to civilians too." Or perhaps... I guess maybe a drunk George has just as much right to defend himself when things go south? I suppose one could argue that things have finally reached a breaking point—though I hesitate to say that too definitively without seeing how the dust settles. It feels like we’re watching a slow-motion collision where everyone involved is just waiting for the impact. Honestly, if you ask me, it’s less about a sudden explosion and more about a systemic failure that was inevitable from the start. I don't want to sound overly dramatic, but at this stage, it seems like the whole situation is just ready to boil over. What happens when Mary overcooks the rice?

Nicholas King said:I honestly can’t quite wrap my head around what the actual issue is in this debate—I mean, I really don't see where everyone is getting hung up.

On one hand—and I say this with some degree of hesitation, though the logic seems sound enough—if someone happens to witness one, two, five, or even ten instances of certain police procedures or specific types of misconduct, it isn’t just unfounded to draw a sweeping conclusion from that... it’s frankly quite unintelligent. I guess you could argue that a handful of isolated incidents doesn't necessarily constitute a systemic pattern, but then again, anyone paying attention might disagree. Everyone. It’s always the same old story with these cops—it doesn't matter which one you deal with, they all seem to operate under the same flawed logic. Whether they are being overly aggressive or just completely incompetent, the result is essentially identical. I guess it’s just an inherent part of the system at this point.

Wait—hold on just a second.

It is just as fundamentally flawed—and I say this with all due respect to the fact that not every police officer is out there committing crimes—to prohibit anyone from actually calling out those specific instances involving one, two, five, or even ten bad actors. It’s not like we’re being radical; it's simply common sense to point out when the exact same logic—that "these incidents represent a tiny fraction of the general population"—is being recycled by defense attorneys in cases involving clergy abuse.

If a police officer holds a privileged position in society—meaning they possess the legal authority to engage in repression and take actions that "civilians" simply aren't allowed to—then they can’t exactly turn around and say, "Well, damn, it happens to civilians too." Or perhaps... I guess maybe a drunk George has just as much right to defend himself when things go south? I suppose one could argue that things have finally reached a breaking point—though I hesitate to say that too definitively without seeing how the dust settles. It feels like we’re watching a slow-motion collision where everyone involved is just waiting for the impact. Honestly, if you ask me, it’s less about a sudden explosion and more about a systemic failure that was inevitable from the start. I don't want to sound overly dramatic, but at this stage, it seems like the whole situation is just ready to boil over. What happens when Mary overcooks the rice?

Brian Edwards6 said:The crux of the matter is that any discussion, regardless of the subject, inevitably drifts into completely unrelated territory. Yet, I somehow find myself being accused of preventing that drift on the forums I moderate—as if my attempts to maintain order are some sort of negative or unwelcome behavior.👍

No one is being prevented from doing that.👍

It is out of line if it has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand.👍

"Privileged conduct" is manifested in the fact that such force and police actions are utilized to protect the general public (civilians) from antisocial individuals (both civilians and the "privileged"), rather than to satisfy personal, low impulses. In other words, it is about service, not about holding a privileged position.👍

Nicholas King said:I honestly can’t quite wrap my head around what the actual issue is in this debate—I mean, I really don't see where everyone is getting hung up.

On one hand—and I say this with some degree of hesitation, though the logic seems sound enough—if someone happens to witness one, two, five, or even ten instances of certain police procedures or specific types of misconduct, it isn’t just unfounded to draw a sweeping conclusion from that... it’s frankly quite unintelligent. I guess you could argue that a handful of isolated incidents doesn't necessarily constitute a systemic pattern, but then again, anyone paying attention might disagree. Everyone. It’s always the same old story with these cops—it doesn't matter which one you deal with, they all seem to operate under the same flawed logic. Whether they are being overly aggressive or just completely incompetent, the result is essentially identical. I guess it’s just an inherent part of the system at this point.

Wait—hold on just a second.

It is just as fundamentally flawed—and I say this with all due respect to the fact that not every police officer is out there committing crimes—to prohibit anyone from actually calling out those specific instances involving one, two, five, or even ten bad actors. It’s not like we’re being radical; it's simply common sense to point out when the exact same logic—that "these incidents represent a tiny fraction of the general population"—is being recycled by defense attorneys in cases involving clergy abuse.

If a police officer holds a privileged position in society—meaning they possess the legal authority to engage in repression and take actions that "civilians" simply aren't allowed to—then they can’t exactly turn around and say, "Well, damn, it happens to civilians too." Or perhaps... I guess maybe a drunk George has just as much right to defend himself when things go south? I suppose one could argue that things have finally reached a breaking point—though I hesitate to say that too definitively without seeing how the dust settles. It feels like we’re watching a slow-motion collision where everyone involved is just waiting for the impact. Honestly, if you ask me, it’s less about a sudden explosion and more about a systemic failure that was inevitable from the start. I don't want to sound overly dramatic, but at this stage, it seems like the whole situation is just ready to boil over. What happens when Mary overcooks the rice?

Brian Edwards6 As stated by:
It is an undeniable reality that out of hundreds of thousands of individual actions, there will inevitably be a handful of irregular ones.👍

Brian Edwards6 As stated by:
What people call "preferential treatment" is actually just a misunderstanding of what it means to act in the interest of the public good; true authority is exercised when law enforcement uses its power to shield the general populace from antisocial elements—both common agitators and those who believe they are above the law—rather than indulging in petty, personal vendettas. In essence, this isn't about enjoying some elevated status or special privilege, but rather about the heavy burden of service to the community at large.👍

feralranger said:

Brian Edwards6 As stated by:
It is an undeniable reality that out of hundreds of thousands of individual actions, there will inevitably be a handful of irregular ones.👍

As I have previously maintained, politicians will always attempt to frame their own actions in the most flattering light possible. Yet, let us be perfectly clear: this nation has been looted right down to its very foundation, leaving our seniors with no choice but to scavenge through trash cans just to make ends meet.

Those are nothing more than empty platitudes, quite frankly, lacking any real substance whatsoever.

Brian Edwards6 As stated by:
What people call "preferential treatment" is actually just a misunderstanding of what it means to act in the interest of the public good; true authority is exercised when law enforcement uses its power to shield the general populace from antisocial elements—both common agitators and those who believe they are above the law—rather than indulging in petty, personal vendettas. In essence, this isn't about enjoying some elevated status or special privilege, but rather about the heavy burden of service to the community at large.👍

And once again, we hear it from the politicians... that tired old line about "serving the people." Honestly, those empty platitudes carry absolutely zero weight.