LowPitchFart Posted July 9, 2016 Author Share Posted July 9, 2016 2 hours ago, 6tails said: What bothers me more is how cowardly and pansy the police have become. Had that been Texas Rangers, he'd have been swarmed and caught alive. Dallas police can barely contain coffee and a donut. Dunno this guy looked pretty pro. Looking at his flawless execution of taking out an officer from behind, I'd be pretty scared too. He made it look effortless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MalletFace Posted July 10, 2016 Share Posted July 10, 2016 10 hours ago, Battlechili said: I meant reactionary as in "a quick response without much thought", as in a reaction to something. Not in the political definition of the word. My whole response was just based on the idea that you were talking politically and not with your own description, so I apologize for stepping in. I wasn't trying to criticize anything you were saying, and I wasn't trying to suggest you held a reactionary opinion. I was just attempting to explain what reactionary usually means, so I again apologize. 10 hours ago, Battlechili said: Furthermore, it is not a reactionary opinion to have that people, in general, should respect the police. I am not referring to the black community specifically. The police, job wise, exist to, and please excuse me if this comes off as cliche, serve and protect. They are supposed to be the authority, the people people look up to and trust when in need of help. Obviously, the current state of the police and the response some police officers have had would certainly make it difficult to trust the police. However, saying that people should continue to trust the police does not even come close to "reestablishing an element of the status quo of the antebellum era of the Southern United States", as you are implying that saying "people should trust the police" is directly akin to blatant racism and is holding back police reform, which is extremely far from the truth. One can trust and respect a group of people while desiring reform and encouraging such. In no way are the two contradictory. A reactionary opinion is one that supports an earlier status quo, especially one prewar - a status quo ante bellum. I never said that suggesting people respect the authority of police is reactionary. I said that suggesting that "'The blacks need to learn their place and respect the police,' 'Blacks need to learn to respect authority,' and 'Blacks need to stop hating police' is reactionary. Those statements assume that a majority of American blacks do not already respect or love the police and authority, and a skepticism of police and authority is mutually exclusive with respect and love. Because those statements equate widespread and outspoken skepticism of police from black Americans with lack of respect for police and authority, one would need to find the last period in U.S. history in which widespread and outspoken skepticism of police from black Americans is not present to find something similar to what these people seek. That period happens to be the early 19th century. But I was just giving examples of reactionary statements that I had seen recently, and I was in no way suggesting that you supported these statements, that these statements are right or wrong, that these statements are racist, or that these statements are just or unjust. I was just giving examples of reactionary statements I had seen recently. Reactionary does not mean racist/wrong/unjust/etc. Reactionary opinions frequently are those things, but it does not mean they are those by definition. I apologize for the confusion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrishaCat Posted July 10, 2016 Share Posted July 10, 2016 3 minutes ago, MalletFace said: My whole response was just based on the idea that you were talking politically and not with your own description, so I apologize for stepping in. I wasn't trying to criticize anything you were saying, and I wasn't trying to suggest you held a reactionary opinion. I was just attempting to explain what reactionary usually means, so I again apologize. A reactionary opinion is one that supports an earlier status quo, especially one prewar - a status quo ante bellum. I never said that suggesting people respect the authority of police is reactionary. I said that suggesting that "'The blacks need to learn their place and respect the police,' 'Blacks need to learn to respect authority,' and 'Blacks need to stop hating police' is reactionary. Those statements assume that a majority of American blacks do not already respect or love the police and authority, and a skepticism of police and authority is mutually exclusive with respect and love. Because those statements equate widespread and outspoken skepticism of police from black Americans with lack of respect for police and authority, one would need to find the last period in U.S. history in which widespread and outspoken skepticism of police from black Americans is not present to find something similar to what these people seek. That period happens to be the early 19th century. But I was just giving examples of reactionary statements that I had seen recently, and I was in no way suggesting that you supported these statements, that these statements are right or wrong, that these statements are racist, or that these statements are just or unjust. I was just giving examples of reactionary statements I had seen recently. Reactionary does not mean racist/wrong/unjust/etc. Reactionary opinions frequently are those things, but it does not mean they are those by definition. I apologize for the confusion. Sorry, I misunderstood what you were trying to say. Forgive me for that; I think I took offense where it was unnecessary. And yeah, I didn't quite understand the actual definition of the word reactionary when I originally typed what I said. As I said, I was just thinking of the word as "someone who reacts quickly to something without much thought" or something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricky Posted July 10, 2016 Share Posted July 10, 2016 1 hour ago, 6tails said: Anybody with proper motivation can get in a zone and simply execute. The guy was an Army Reservist, that's hardly pro by any means unless he had some real tours of duty (which plenty don't ever get, and even then, many that do tours don't get a combat role. My Reservist pal in Hawaii does FORINT/SIGINT.) In all fairness it is Texas we're talking about. Everyone there probably knew the proper way to show a rifle when they turned seven. And FORINT? COMSEC you mean? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricky Posted July 10, 2016 Share Posted July 10, 2016 1 minute ago, 6tails said: Nope. Foreign Intelligence. Specifically China. How is that any different than signal intelligence? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricky Posted July 10, 2016 Share Posted July 10, 2016 5 minutes ago, 6tails said: Nope. Foreign Intelligence. Specifically China. Oh, okay yeah I guess that makes sense. I usually hear the term with communication security. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamedog Posted July 10, 2016 Share Posted July 10, 2016 On July 8, 2016 at 8:24 AM, Sylver said: Interestingly, it's not difficult to imagine the two factions starting a war; police versus anti-police (I'd say black people, but I assume some white people also support it). It could be called, "The Race War" HELTER SKELTER Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Endless/Nameless Posted July 11, 2016 Share Posted July 11, 2016 whut i'm not reading all that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.