Are was already in a Police state and we do not know it??

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Ajay

Lifer
Jan 8, 2001
16,094
8,109
136
Black people live in a police state. Just ask Breonna Taylor. What happened to her fits your description
Yeah this, and Latinos. I'm white and I've never felt like I live in a police state - the police have always treated me with respect, even when I caused an accident.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,286
6,352
126
Crabby— I don’t believe in unconscious anything. Assumptions, bigotry or any of that subliminal “ you don’t even know you’re racist” baloney. It’s the conscious thoughts we have that matter, and most importantly, how we act or not on them. I agree we have conscious assumptions that aren’t factual. Those we can discuss and debate and deal with.
The unconscious part comes into play because all those conscious assumptions we make that can turn out to be wrong were assumed at the time we held them to be correct. We constantly fall into the trap of not being aware we do that. The reason we do is because The Good that is so important to believe in to have any kind of hope or faith we believe can only be true if it is the personal we believe in. We don't know that The Good exists and does not depend on what we believe. The truth that life is good can be doubted but can never disappear. It is, I think The Truth that is written into our being, what can't be taken when all all else is lost. I ran into trouble when I tried to prove my personal beliefs were Truth.
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,189
14,114
136
A police state is when the police exceed their authority, we live in a police state.

The right to have $10K in your pocket and not have it confiscated under some asset forfeiture bull shit. Maybe you just sold a vehicle to a guy who paid you in cash, and haven't been to the bank yet (oh wait that won't work, deposit 10K in cash and they have to notify authorities) but you got stopped for some stupid traffic violation like a burnt out tag light, and some cop that thinks he is also judge and jury decides you are going to do something nefarious with that much money (a third of his annual income) and confiscates it as evidence of some unknown possible future crime. It happens.

When you finally (if) get your money back, maybe after you spend another 10K in legal fees and it finally gets resolved 2 years later.

That's a fucking police state genius.

PS why you have $10K in cash is none of the governments fucking business in the first place.
PPS getting stopped for something as completely trivial as a burnt out tag light also means you live in a police state. Tag lights are totally bogus anyway, either it is daylight (DoH) plus every tag I have seen is reflective and still clearly visible.

footnote: I sold a truck to an individual yesterday, and when he came to get it, he paid me in cash. Thus I am well aware. The last vehicle I purchased, I paid the seller in cash. 100% absolutely legal, except in the eyes of some cop with an ego or a point to prove.

I totally disagree with that definition of "police state" as that has never been what that term means, GENIUS. You know what a "genius" does? He actually bothers to acquaint himself with the longstanding, accepted definition of a word or phrase before using it in a discussion. He does not attempt to broaden the definition to fit a real world situation he wants the term to apply to. When people say "police state" they think of the Nazis. They think of Stalin. They think of North Korea. Either you do not know this, in which case you are ignorant, or you do know this, in which case you are being dishonest.

police state
noun
a nation in which the police, especially a secret police, summarily suppresses any social, economic, or political act that conflicts with governmental policy.


:"Exceeding their authority" is exactly what a police state is not. In a police state, police are given the authority to do brutal and immoral things to citizens by an authoritarian state. If what the police are doing is exceeding their authority, that is not a police state. It is a state with lawless police. A totally different thing.

A police state is a totalitarian state where people fear that the police, most especially political police which we do not have, will show up at their door to arrest them for political behavior, especially that of criticizing or opposing the totalitarian state that the police apparatus is there to support.

"Fun" facts about Stalinist Russia. In the 1930's and 1940's, they put millions of people into detention, and executed millions of others, for merely criticizing Stalin or the Soviet state. But it was even worse than that, actually. They sometimes targeted citizens who were known among their neighbors and friends as being especially strong supporters of the regime. They did this to literally terrorize their friends and neighbors into thinking if that guy can be taken away, then we all can.

That is a "police state." A real one. Saying that America today is a police state cheapens and disrespects the suffering of millions who lived under the yoke of those regimes.

But do go on in this public internet discussion forum about how we're living in a police state, because we both know you do not fear reprisal from the government for doing so.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mistercrabby

mistercrabby

Senior member
Mar 9, 2013
962
53
91
...because the video has multiple examples of Cops acting like Thugs. You know, the kind of things that make Police States, Police States.

All you got is your opinion and a Post.

Oh honey, you’re the one with the affirmative position, so it’s on you to make your case. You have not come anywhere close to proving your prima fascia burden, thus nothing to debate here.

Do the work.
 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,698
1,909
126
If there is a question as to whether or not you are in a police state, then you probably aren’t
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,231
5,806
126
Oh honey, you’re the one with the affirmative position, so it’s on you to make your case. You have not come anywhere close to proving your prima fascia burden, thus nothing to debate here.

Do the work.

In your opinion.
 

mistercrabby

Senior member
Mar 9, 2013
962
53
91
In your opinion.

Wow, you totally win the argument with that! Impressive factual cascade, presented logically. You’ll be out of food service in no time.

But no, not just my opinion... And why you suck at making a credible point.

1. What is a Prima Facie Case?

The term translates from Latin as, essentially, the case at first sight. As that phrase implies, it is a way to evaluate a case at an initial stage to see if there is any support for bringing it to trial. A party with the burden of proof presents a prima facie case when the party presents enough evidence to support a verdict in the party’s favor, assuming the opposing party does not rebut or disprove it. This means that the party with the burden of proof has shown that he or she can meet that burden as to each element of his or her case. Where a party with the burden of proof cannot present a prima facie case, the opposing party may move for a verdict in the opposing party’s favor because the other party cannot possibly win.


2. YouTube is generally not a good source of factual information.

The quality of the videos evaluated by DISCERN and GQS was generally low (1.87 and 1.95, respectively, on a 1 to 5 scale with 5 being the maximum). Moreover, we found that viewers rated poor-quality videos better than higher quality videos.

Subjective anecdotal and unscientific content is disproportionately overrepresented and poor-quality videos are predominantly rated positively by users, while higher quality video clips receive less positive ratings.


Yes, I would like some fries with that. (-;
.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,231
5,806
126
Wow, you totally win the argument with that! Impressive factual cascade, presented logically. You’ll be out of food service in no time.

But no, not just my opinion... And why you suck at making a credible point.

1. What is a Prima Facie Case?

The term translates from Latin as, essentially, the case at first sight. As that phrase implies, it is a way to evaluate a case at an initial stage to see if there is any support for bringing it to trial. A party with the burden of proof presents a prima facie case when the party presents enough evidence to support a verdict in the party’s favor, assuming the opposing party does not rebut or disprove it. This means that the party with the burden of proof has shown that he or she can meet that burden as to each element of his or her case. Where a party with the burden of proof cannot present a prima facie case, the opposing party may move for a verdict in the opposing party’s favor because the other party cannot possibly win.


2. YouTube is generally not a good source of factual information.

The quality of the videos evaluated by DISCERN and GQS was generally low (1.87 and 1.95, respectively, on a 1 to 5 scale with 5 being the maximum). Moreover, we found that viewers rated poor-quality videos better than higher quality videos.

Subjective anecdotal and unscientific content is disproportionately overrepresented and poor-quality videos are predominantly rated positively by users, while higher quality video clips receive less positive ratings.


Yes, I would like some fries with that. (-;
.

The Youtube video was actual Video of actual Events. You got your own typed words.