• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Weaponized Safety

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
Its not just cops, either. All you have to do is be generally unlikable, and people will treat you like crap. Police, however, probably should be trained to treat unlikable people and likeable people about the same.
 

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
In other words to convince people that the bad guys will be caught by screening measures and so it's safe to fly. It also serves to convince the common bad guy that it's not safe to try something. The pro of course will use other measures designed to bypass screening.
True, but this at least screens out anyone who might kill using orange juice as a weapon. I had my orange juice confiscated on my first flight.
 

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
Traffic law enforcement is an enormous problem in Ameristan.
Ref....
How the Supreme Court Made It Legal for Cops to Pull You Over for Just About Anything
Excerpted (underlining added)....
In February, in a case involving a traffic stop over a dangling parking pass, D. Arthur Kelsey, then a judge on Virginia’s Court of Criminal Appeals, wrote: “So dense is the modern web of motor vehicle regulations that every motorist is likely to get caught in it every time he drives to the grocery store.” And now, he wrote, “reasonable suspicion justifying the seizure of citizens will be found even if police officers are mistaken concerning the law as long as their testimony includes magic words such as ‘I thought . . . I believed . . . I mistakenly believed . . . I suspected . . . I mistakenly suspected . . .’ or as in this case, the officer just doesn't really know one way or the other.”

In numerous cases, cops will have hostile focus upon someone
for personal reasons. They need only briefly follow the person's
car until they can claim some traffic violation. Then there are
tools they can use to escalate the situation with claims of an
"officer safety" issue. Typical claims...
You're behaving suspiciously.
You look nervous.
You're agitated.
I saw you reach for what could be a weapon.

Fortunately I'm a white "senior citizen" but yes, I could be pulled over because I frequently drive 3-4 miles over the speed limit, have been known to do "California stops" at stop signs and generally don't exactly turn on my signals at 100ft before I'm going to make a turn. I may even make unsafe lane changes and follow too closely on the freeway where allowing the proper distance to the car in front means every few seconds someone moving into my land cutting my distance to the car in front.
 

Lain

Well-Known Member
"Weaponized safety" is an interesting term I ran across recently.
It was in the context of cops who pretend that some innocent
action by someone under their control is a deadly threat.
It provides pretext to escalate the situation, & become abusive.

That's just one example. We can see this attitude many other
places these days, ranging from benign accusations like
"micro-aggression" all the way to inferring deadly threat
from over-the-top political speech, eg, burning a political
figure in effigy.

"Security theater" is another delicious term describing
over-reaction to 9/11 events, eg, putting infants on the
Terrorism Watch List.

What have you seen?

Probably the reaction to COVID, internet censorship and monitoring under the pretext of protecting children, that kind of thing. It's entirely to be expected, any problem is just a chance for the ghouls and goblins which rule us to grab more power.
 

Wildswanderer

Veteran Member
I agree that we've endured many.
But this thread is about weaponization of bogus safety concerns.
Do you have any egregious examples of Covid protocols being
used against people for for the purpose of abuse rather than safety?
Look at Austria. Or Singapore. It's beyond ridiculous.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Aussie here. Care to mention what crackdowns specifically took things too far? Merely curious
I made a thread on it. Media had portrayed covid crackdowns as being the end of Australia as a free country. I had enquired if this was actually true or not.
 

SomeRandom

Still learning to be wise
Staff member
Premium Member
I made a thread on it. Media had portrayed covid crackdowns as being the end of Australia as a free country. I had enquired if this was actually true or not.
I replied to that thread. It was mostly hyperbole as far as I could tell.
Granted some of the states had far more severe measures. Which had to be extended because people violated them in protest, ironically enough. With vaccination rates stabilising now those restrictions have likely eased as well
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
I replied to that thread. It was mostly hyperbole as far as I could tell.
Granted I wish we could get some products back on shelves. But honestly I’ve experienced far worse security measures when I visited the US a few years back :shrug:
Well glad your safe. Even I thought that sounds unbelievable and didn't buy fully into it without checking more into the stories.
 

SomeRandom

Still learning to be wise
Staff member
Premium Member
Well glad your safe. Even I thought that sounds unbelievable and didn't buy fully into it without checking more into the stories.
Cheers.
Yeah the news often wants to sell drama and misery lol. It’s good to question them
 

SomeRandom

Still learning to be wise
Staff member
Premium Member
There is a group of people we might call "the woke" or "overly PC" or "the illiberal left" who attack people who hold views different than what they view as "correct". For now I'll use "woke", but I'd be happy to use a different term. The woke often take on a fervor very similar to religious extremism. In fact author John McWhorter claims the woke have actually created a new religion. The woke's solutions opinions and solutions must be adhered to dogmatically. Any variance from the woke scripture can cause the perpetrator to be subject to public outcry and in some cases can cause the perp to lose their job.

For example, Alison Roman, a food writer for the NYT, was suspended from her job because she criticized Chrissy Teigen and Marie Kondo for being too commercial. Roman is white, Teigen and Kondo are "women of color". There are many such examples.

More personally, I might think that some of BLM's motives are good, but I don't think their solutions are very good. I've been called a racist for this.
To be fair, it’s not like the “anti woke” crowd have completely clean hands in that regard.
They cancel people all the time.
I remember the so called “Fandom Menace” (aka really awful troll-y Star Wars fans) wanted to cancel Gina Corano from the Mandalorian. Then cried censorship after her contract ended simply because she revealed herself as conservative. Now they’ve embraced her.

I swear in today’s political climate it’s like a requirement to have hypocritical standards or otherwise lack consistency. Regardless of one’s place on the political scale. It’s actually kind of annoying.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
To be fair, it’s not like the “anti woke” crowd have completely clean hands in that regard.
They cancel people all the time.
I remember the so called “Fandom Menace” (aka really awful troll-y Star Wars fans) wanted to cancel Gina Corano from the Mandalorian. Then cried censorship after her contract ended simply because she revealed herself as conservative. Now they’ve embraced her.

I swear in today’s political climate it’s like a requirement to have hypocritical standards or otherwise lack consistency. Regardless of one’s place on the political scale. It’s actually kind of annoying.
This is rather irrelevant to the thread.
Let's not make it about cancel culture, which is entirely different.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Sorry, the OP mentioned micro-aggressions - what did you mean if not wokeness?
In the OP, micro-aggression was at the lower end
of the weaponized safety spectrum. It would be
useful if those addressing that made a connection
to "weaponized safety". Not merely complaining
about it.
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
In the OP, micro-aggression was at the lower end of the weaponized safety spectrum. It would be useful if those addressing that made a connection to "weaponized safety". Not merely complaining
about it.

Well if a person loses their job because "the woke" declared their speech to be "unsafe" or "violent", which is commonly claimed, wouldn't that be a form of weaponization?

I was listening to a Stephen Fry interview and he was talking about "the woke" declaring that Shakespeare should not be taught because sometimes the play includes a rape or even the mention of a rape. Some "woke" folks will claim that even uttering the word "rape" is an act of violence. Would you consider that weaponization?
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Well if a person loses their job because "the woke" declared their speech to be "unsafe" or "violent", which is commonly claimed, wouldn't that be a form of weaponization?
Seems so to me.
I was listening to a Stephen Fry interview and he was talking about "the woke" declaring that Shakespeare should not be taught because sometimes the play includes a rape or even the mention of a rape. Some "woke" folks will claim that even uttering the word "rape" is an act of violence. Would you consider that weaponization?
This though is related, but not part of the OP's theme
because it's not being used to abuse anyone. It's
just censorship.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
This is an example of a cop threatening a woman
with having an ambulance called to test her for
being "mentally unstable" & "having a mental crisis".
The accusation is made so that under the pretext
of safety, her other concerns can be ignored, & she
can be detained so her sanity can be tested.
The cop actually works to escalate the situation, &
interferes with another's attempt to de-escalate.
 

Azrael Antilla

Active Member
all the way to inferring deadly threat
from over-the-top political speech, eg, burning a political
figure in effigy.
Well. Stochastic terrorist threats work on the principles of graphically demonstrating intent in order to encourage attacks from the general population.
 
Top