SFPD's turn to **** up

Well I wouldn't have put it so harshly .

Very poetic, VH, but you might want to pull your head out of your ass for a moment. There might be a Great Western Dreamworld over there around your street, but here the government is centalized, built around a single Dear Leader, who, in his declining popularity does everything to hold on his power. The police numbers are at 48000 now, with some 18000 recruits in the last eight years, while the commmies needed around 26000 in the harshest years for about the same number of population. There are also these things called "public area inspector"-s, who have batons, sprays and the right and will to fine, hold up, and generally harass people. Parks get cut to be see-through and get fenced cameras popping up everywhere with incredible speed, merry new rules that make fining people available for crossing an empty street or smoking within five metres of the doors of the tobacco store. And finally, I was ID checked today again, because those 18000 twenty year old dumb**** recruits always get scared of me (especially the midget kind), and want to raise their self confidence with playing tuff and robbing my time. So pretty please, next time when you feel poetic, **** you instead.

There's certainly problems with the police force in the U.S., but to call it a "police state" is just absurd. A police state is more than just some police officers stopping you to look at your ID; in a real police state you wouldn't even be able to say such accusations without being hunted down.

I'm not in the US. And you mix up police state with dictatorship. It's a democracy here, so people can't be dragged away for complaining about the system, but the police force's main role is to protect the current government's interests, and to keep the population in line with extra tax collecting through harassment for every slight, and generally being everywhere making presence.

Suspicious Pilgrim said:

The client's reaction is funny, it's like a combination of "wtf" and "You can do that?"

Click to expand...

Which is completely understandable

Bromden said:

Very poetic, VH, but you might want to pull your head out of your ass for a moment. There might be a Great Western Dreamworld over there around your street, but here the government is centalized, built around a single Dear Leader, who, in his declining popularity does everything to hold on his power. The police numbers are at 48000 now, with some 18000 recruits in the last eight years, while the commmies needed around 26000 in the harshest years for about the same number of population. There are also these things called "public area inspector"-s, who have batons, sprays and the right and will to fine, hold up, and generally harass people. Parks get cut to be see-through and get fenced cameras popping up everywhere with incredible speed, merry new rules that make fining people available for crossing an empty street or smoking within five metres of the doors of the tobacco store. And finally, I was ID checked today again, because those 18000 twenty year old dumb**** recruits always get scared of me (especially the midget kind), and want to raise their self confidence with playing tuff and robbing my time. So pretty please, next time when you feel poetic, **** you instead.

Click to expand...

I realize that there are currently states which have some degree of repression present in their police forces, like some Latin American countries and many post-Soviet states, Hungary included. However, I don't think any of them, with the exception of Russia, could be in any way classified as a police state. A police state would be like East Germany or the USSR, where the Stasi or NKVD/KGB could haul you away in the middle of the night with no questions asked on charges that nobody cared if they were trumped-up or not.

What you described is not a police state, but a state in which there is heightened police presence. Sounds like no difference but the difference in definition is everything. Having more officers per person does not a police state make, nor does installation of cameras, which I cannot imagine are any more invasive than the ones currently in many British and American cities. Fines also do not make a police state, although the Hungarian judiciary system has come under criticism before. There's fines here for smoking within 10m of a building, but I don't see anyone calling Canada a police state, except, perhaps, fringe elements and you now with your ill-defined and ill-supported criteria. Repressive police actions also don't constitute a police state. They're definitely ****ty and they indicate problems endemic in police departments, but does it mean you now live in a police state? Definitely not, because if you did they'd probably just have had you imprisoned with no real trial or killed.

The word "police state" gets thrown around a little too much, but it wouldn't be the first time you've displayed your own political inadequacy by committing such an error. I'll also add that it's somewhat ironic that you're mocking someone for trying to raise their self-confidence by playing tough in the same sentence as you say that you intimidate police officers. Stay classy.

I don't care how you try to convince yourself that bad things don't exist. Just keep denying to your sheltered wiseacre self and spare me what you "don't think" is happening here. And I didn't intimidate no one, they get scared of me. But thanks for blaming me for other's cowardice. Moron.

Jhessail said:

If that happens, Maw and Wheem can get their militia together and  provide TRUE AMERICAN frontier justice for San Fran. 

Click to expand...

.....*Beeeep* that.

@Bromden Um.....what country are we talking about? Please don't say its my country (Sweden).

Hungary.

Nordic countries are as far from a police state as you can get while still having law enforcement.

Bromden said:

I don't care how you try to convince yourself that bad things don't exist. Just keep denying to your sheltered wiseacre self and spare me what you "don't think" is happening here. And I didn't intimidate no one, they get scared of me. But thanks for blaming me for other's cowardice. Moron.

Click to expand...

I make it pretty clear in that post that I definitely don't believe that not being a police state doesn't mean that the police force can't be corrupt or horrible. But just those things are certainly not enough to justify calling something a police state outright, which takes me back to my first post. And yes, someone being scared of you is intimidation, just not active intimidation. The point there wasn't so much blaming you for "someone else's cowardice" as it was pointing out how it's ironic that you assume that the reason the police stop you is because they're afraid of you and need to boost their own self-confidence.

People have been getting scared of me for the last 16 or so years. I can read the people's cowardice level pretty good on first contact. But I'm sure you know everything about my life better than me, so I'll stop trying to convince you otherwise.

And now I'm guilty of passive intimidation, and I regularly commit it by walking down the street. How incredible it is how your morality and logic can work together.

I'm not saying you're guilty of intimidation, if anything my personal opinion is that I doubt there are many people who are "scared" of you. What I was trying to say, which you clearly aren't getting, was that in the same sentence as you denounced a police officer's posturing to raise his own self-confidence, you all but boast that people are "scared" of you and that you can sense the cowardice within then. It's pathetic posturing on the level of that which you denounce.

At any rate, your lack of response to anything related at all to the main subject, that being police states, is telling.

Did I boast now, you bloody idiot? I can't express how ****ing annoying it is and detrimental to any kind of social interaction when half of the population is incapable of looking through my size and ugly mug. Please, don't express your high and mighty opinion about something you don't know **** about.

Edit: Moron.

Combined with your words on the police it's difficult to take it as anything but. Moreover denouncing people as cowardly is hardly a good way to get the idea across.

It wouldn't be difficult if you tried using your brain. And how would you call a coward other than a coward? "Heroically challenged"?

You could probably not call people cowards at all because it tends to give off a "me vs. society" sort of feeling when you use that language to refer to people. That or you're a Commissar during World War II.

So I should refrain using a word because you don't like to call a basic human trait (cowardice) in it's name. Fine.

Everyone is heroically challenged to an extent. The ones I called hc here are the people who can't control their fears to such extent that they can't function rationally on the sight of a big hairy man. You can paint it as nice as you are able to, but some people will still evade me in a wide circle, or cry out when they turn at a corner or look up from their phones and I'm there. That's not unchallanged heroism, that's for sure; that's giving in to baseless fears.

I might chalk the wide circle evasion up to maybe your admission that you don't wear deodorant. As for the rest of it, yes, there are "cowardly" people in the world but I'd imagine it doesn't make one a coward to not want to associate with someone in particular, there's plenty of other reasons why that might occur. Like the aforementioned. Assuming people are automatically "cowardly" because they might want to avoid you is pretty self-serving in that sense.

Your lame insults that you try disguise as discussion lack any point. Get a spine, troll. I at least have the decency to call you a moron to the face.

Vermilion, are you just in a bad mood today, or...?