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.
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
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.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.
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.
"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?
Look at Austria. Or Singapore. It's beyond ridiculous.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?
I recommend presenting any interesting examples you know of.Look at Austria. Or Singapore. It's beyond ridiculous.
Covid police patrolling in Austria and robots patrolling in Singapore.I recommend presenting any interesting examples you know of.
We want stories!
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.Aussie here. Care to mention what crackdowns specifically took things too far? Merely curious
I replied to that thread. It was mostly hyperbole as far as I could tell.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.
Well glad your safe. Even I thought that sounds unbelievable and didn't buy fully into it without checking more into the stories.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
Cheers.Well glad your safe. Even I thought that sounds unbelievable and didn't buy fully into it without checking more into the stories.
To be fair, it’s not like the “anti woke” crowd have completely clean hands in that regard.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.
This is rather irrelevant to the thread.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.
In the OP, micro-aggression was at the lower endSorry, the OP mentioned micro-aggressions - what did you mean if not wokeness?
Fair enough. I was merely responding to another comment on “Cancel Culture.”This is rather irrelevant to the thread.
Let's not make it about cancel culture, which is entirely different.
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.
Seems so to me.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?
This though is related, but not part of the OP's themeI 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?
Well. Stochastic terrorist threats work on the principles of graphically demonstrating intent in order to encourage attacks from the general population.all the way to inferring deadly threat
from over-the-top political speech, eg, burning a political
figure in effigy.