unixknight

I know this post is several replies back but I'd like to take a stab at the answer. Courtesy is when you keep other peoples' sensibilities in mind when you speak, but you don't let that inhibit your own ability to express yourself. That means others should be willing to make some accommodation for you in the name of mutual respect and clear communication. Political Correctness is when people use the excuse of being offended to attempt to manipulate language and influence the way people think. That's just how I see it. So this is an example of courtesy, IMHO: Me: So yeah I think that chick over there is pretty hot. LP: Could you avoid calling them 'chicks' please? That's kind of annoying to me. Me: Okay sorry about that. I think the lady over there is pretty hot. And this is political correctness: Me: So yeah I think that chick over there is pretty hot. SJW: How dare you use such a condescending term? Do you want to go back to re-education? Me: No, sorry. I find that person over there to be physically attractive, not in any way related to that person's sex or gender identity. Me (In reality): Get bent.

Ok so you have a job that's unpopular with the people you come into contact with. The same is true of social workers, people who serve summonses and dentists. When do we start issuing them military camo and military rifles? Ok so you aren't open to understanding other peoples' perspectives. Gotcha. (I mean that was obvious, but at least you acknowledge it.) You don't have to agree with someone in order to understand where they're coming from. That's a very narrow view. You probably therefore think me a Liberal, which would send my friends (or anyone else who knows me personally) into fits of hysterical laughter. I know it. I'm in Baltimore and I see it firsthand. Good that you acknowledge the corruption. This is where cases like Freddie Gray come from. From a position like that, the risk comes when the bullet penetrates fully and hits someone behind. I'd also point out - again, that in a riot situation people aren't standing still in neat rows. You take that shot and you'll probably hit the wrong person as people shift and jostle around. It's security theater at best, because you'd have to do a lot better than "oops, oh well" if an innocent takes that round. Yeah hopefully, but if it ever does I'm sure you'll be right there to defend it, amirite? It isn't about sensitivity at all. It's about a glimpse of how you see things. If you can't understand why it's problematic to see someone viewing killing someone in a positive light, then I don't know what else to say. Ok, so you're okay with the idea of the military and the police having the same rules of engagement? Sorry to hear you were wounded, but glad you're still with us. Sorry to hear it. I wouldn't wish that on anyone. That said, I'm sure you aren't seeing it becoming more socially acceptable. You're probably right that he wouldn't have reformed. You're right that it's rare. And yes I know sometimes they force the issue and the shooting is necessary. That still doesn't justify celebrating the death of another human being, even when it was necessary. I find that attitude revolting under the best of circumstances, and downright terrifying coming from someone who wore a badge. I'm not gonna defend people who do that stuff, and yeah maybe the world would be better off without such a person, but I'm not qualified to say that and neither are you. Shooting a suspect is an act of defending one's self or someone else from an immediate threat. What you're talking about right there is retribution and that isn't the same thing. Then you misunderstood me, or I wasn't clear enough. If you say " don't commit crimes and you have nothing to worry about" when defending militarized law enforcement, that sounds a lot like people saying "you don't need your rights if you aren't doing anything wrong." Which is utterly wrong. I don't commit crimes, but that doesn't mean I'd be comfortable with a paramilitary civilian police force. Okie doke.

@NeedleinA Man, looking at that collection brings back memories... Awesome!

The stilts I built add about 14 inches. I'm well over 7' tall in the suit, which is crazy when you meet people tall enough to almost look you in the eye in their normal shoes. I'll wear it to the occasional con or maybe church Halloween event. It's physically exhausting to wear so I won't do it often.

Heh yeah. Each of those suits is about 200 man hours of work.

Yes I do this. I understand they charge more for snacks and drinks because their staff typically has to clean up when people make messes, but the massive prices amount to gouging, in my opinion. I admit that it's a bit dishonest since, on some level, by going to the theater you're agreeing to abide by their rules, which include a prohibition against bringing your own refreshments, but I still do it. Only within family, which is a feature now a part of Netflix anyway. No I wouldn't do this. It's using a friend. I did this once a couple of years ago but it was an extreme emergency. I was literally on the verge of soiling my pants. This one's pretty hard to do in an age when we all have our own cellphones, so I guess the analog is simply not answering the call, which is within my rights to do. No, never done that. Your mom might be right about that though. Movie theaters make the vast majority of their profits on selling concessions, not tickets. If I were that theater manager, I'd rather your mom watch 3 movies for the price of 1 but buy plenty of popcorn and soda than to see only one movie during her visit. In fact, I'm surprised double features aren't more common. Yeah, I'd do that if I had friends or family arriving shortly.

So after a marathon full-out work session with the help of my buddy and my wife on Saturday, we finished the barebones suit: And got out to AwesomeCon in Washington, DC yesterday. We also got to kill photographers from BrightestYoungThings.com. Let my kids live, though...

Yeah I don't see Land Raiders doing much good in an urban environment like that. Know what else those tiles would be ideal for? Infinity. All those firing lanes and plenty of cover...

Heh just 2 more and you have a regulation 40,000 table... which would be awesome. ...or Age of Sigmar... which would make me throw up a little in my mouth.

Ah ok. So they're 24" on a side, right? I'm seeing those same 4 tiles serving as a cool board for Warmachine as well.

Yep! You assemble and paint miniatures like the ones you've been seeing in this thread. This is what a game might look like on a completed board:

@mirkwood I'm really diggin' that tile. So is it your plan to build a few of these and just arrange them on the table at gametime, or just use it by itself?

I hear ya, just saying I've often had people disregard arguments I've supported because they had some problem or another with the source I used, and I always wondered whether they honestly had an issue with my source or whether they were just using it as an excuse to dismiss an argument they didn't like. Of course I know you aren't doing that... I only bring this up because even the hackiest, most biased or unreliable site still occasionally gets it right and I try to be slow to dismiss it without checking into it first. I don't really know anything about lifesitenews so I don't have a dog in this race either way. I am going to look and see if this is true though.

Either way, we should focus on whether or not these assertions are true. If they are, this is a pretty serious problem.

Not really. Other than MPs, military personnel aren't generally armed or carry live ammo unless they're deployed in a warzone.

The military doesn't routinely point their weapons at private citizens.

Maybe you're right about that, but the military gear makes it a lot easier, and possibly more likely.

This isn't about somebody overthrowing the Constitution. It's about the fact that we shouldn't have to worry about having rights violated by those who are supposed to protect them.

So is mine, but that's not what I said and trusting the Constitution is not the same as trusting those who are supposed to uphold it. Not really.

Then your faith in them must be absolute. Come live in Baltimore for a while if you ever want that shattered.

And the Libertarian platform. I'm no Democrat.

That's what I was thinking... if your target is far away enough that you need a sniper rifle to attack it, then the angle of the incoming bullet will be small compared to the horizontal, so overpenetration means whoever is behind them is getting hit too... and all that assumes the shooter hit the right target to begin with. It ain't like we're talking about a crowd of people all standing in orderly rows and holding still. Yeah that one makes me throw up a little in my mouth. Obviously? How is it obvious? If he's dressed like a soldier, equipped like a soldier and possibly arrived in an APC like a soldier... You know what they say about ducks... Being in Baltimore all the time, even for a Conservative like myself, is an eye opening experience. I hate living around here, but I have to admit that it's prevented me from living in an isolated political echo chamber where I'm surrounded by people who agree with me. It's much better to be around people who challenge your views and force you to think them through.

That's what I was thinking... if your target is far away enough that you need a sniper rifle to attack it, then the angle of the incoming bullet will be small compared to the horizontal, so overpenetration means whoever is behind them is getting hit too... and all that assumes the shooter hit the right target to begin with. It ain't like we're talking about a crowd of people all standing in orderly rows and holding still. Yeah that one makes me throw up a little in my mouth. Obviously? How is it obvious? If he's dressed like a soldier, equipped like a soldier and possibly arrived in an APC like a soldier... You know what they say about ducks... Being in Baltimore all the time, even for a Conservative like myself, is an eye opening experience. I hate living around here, but I have to admit that it's prevented me from living in an isolated political echo chamber where I'm surrounded by people who agree with me. It's much better to be around people who challenge your views and force you to think them through.

@MormonGator I can see where it's a much harder call in a state that could go either way. I live in Maryland, which hasn't gone Republican in a Presidential campaign since 1988. So it makes little difference how I vote.

I agree that criticism should be based on facts. I'm not a fan of the hype in the media either. When I read news stories about this stuff I have to remain conscious of the bias that exists and try to tease out just the facts. That goes both ways though. It's just as bad when somebody's misdeeds get covered up so that they don't make the news, though. That happens too. Sure, I've had that kind of job. And you know what? Whether they were qualified or not to question how I did my job, I still owed them answers and had an obligation to earn and keep their trust. I didn't get to just dismiss their concerns as irrelevant. Know who else I owe answers to? My boss. I don't get to blow off his concerns either. How good was your training in civil law? Gotcha. So when you don't understand something your normal response is to blow it off? Is that what this is about for you? Liberals v Conservatives? This hypothetical doesn't make any sense. Why would they be in the camo in the first place only to remove it when going into action? You keep saying you never see that in your area, and you can't see what goes on in Baltimore, so how would you even know what the problems are? I'm calling B.S. on the elevated firing position story. A guy firing from 12' up may have a better view, but that doesn't make the shot any safer. It's also a strawman to equate not wanting militarized law enforcement with wanting to burn down buildings and riot. Nobody here has ever argued for that, to my knowledge. And what's your point about snipers at the Super Bowl? Is that supposed to prove something? "Oh, there's snipers at the Super Bowl? Well great then, let's get more APCs for my local police department! Totally a logical connection!" I'm gonna assume here that you're being sarcastic. Just remember, 'credit' was the word you chose, not I. No, actually, I can't know what you meant. You're a guy who came into this thread and started by giving us your resume about having been in the military and then a police officer, so clearly the two are related in your mind. How do I know whether you transitioned from one to the other? I'm not the one who used the word 'credit' when referring to shootings on the job. No, you haven't defended that. I'm just curious as to whether you feel like it's professional to have phrases like this guy had on his weapon. It paints a picture of an officer who's eager to use it. How do you feel about that sort of thing? Or the sign in the Baltimore police van that had a sign like this: Not that this example has anything to do with militarization, but I do see it as related to things like the inscription on the AR-15 in the case above. I think it's a pretty long way from socially acceptable, even in a place like Baltimore. Maybe that's how it is where you are, I don't know. Protip: If you're going in hot to a debate, it's not a good idea to toss out general arguments that haven't been raised in it without being clear that you aren't responding to anyone in particular. It makes them look like strawmen even if that wasn't your intent. Ok so it was ruled justified. I'm wondering if you can see how this post contradicts itself. On the one hand, you seem to be dissatisfied with admin not letting you do your job in a way that could have prevented this suspect from having to be shot, (Good on you for that) but refer to his still being alive as "stealing our oxygen." (not so good) So which is it? Are you glad he's dead or do you wish he weren't? That wasn't my question. Has anyone here said that? No, they haven't. So maybe this was another generalization? Well you're fortunate enough to live in a state where the 2nd Amendment means something. Many of us aren't. I agree it's insane, which is why I didn't argue for that. And I think the word you wanted to use here was "equating" not "equivocating." I could be wrong though. Yep, and then Mirkwood responded, and now I know. I then went on to express support for armoring police cars on the basis of what he told me. I know a whole page with maybe ten or twelve posts is an awful lot to read through though, so it's okay if you missed it.