Small businesses

[IBleedMaroonDawg]

 

[paindonthurt]

I didn't move the goalposts, you just missed the whole Goddarn series.

Mayors NOMINALLY have control, but as I said many many pages ago, you can make liberal me the head of the KKK, but it's not gonna change the actions of the rank file a dang bit. The article shows how the vets won't change, and here's a key part you missed....aided and abetted by the state legislatures, that set the rules that allow the vets to do so.

This isn't hard. So either you're lying about it, or just dumb. Either way, not worth wasting any more time on. Good day.

So the police chief can’t discipline someone who breaks his rules?

 

[Maroon Eagle]

So the police chief can’t discipline someone who breaks his rules?

The police chief can.

Minneapolis PD’s discipline matrix changed effective June 2022.

 

[Boom Boom]

So the police chief can’t discipline someone who breaks his rules?

Not if the force will walk out in response.

There's just no acceptance from the rank and file that they need to reform. Which is why the "few bad apples" line is such bullcrap.

 

[paindonthurt]

Not if the force will walk out in response.

There's just no acceptance from the rank and file that they need to reform. Which is why the "few bad apples" line is such bullcrap.

For 17s sake

 

[paindonthurt]

The police chief can.

Minneapolis PD’s discipline matrix changed effective June 2022.

Correct. Please tell your boom boom friend this.

 

[Boom Boom]

For 17s sake

Too much for you to follow I guess. Maybe if I call the vets the "deep state" of the police force?

 

[johnson86-1]

Ok, thought this might go there. I think you are referring to the below part, if not let me know which part you are referring to.

Um...where's the beef? This smacks of some hack trying to make hay of the first part, while ignoring the second part.


"The impact of the proposed speech and the impact of its suppression: Our defense of
speech may have a greater or lesser harmful impact on the equality and justice work to which
we are also committed, depending on factors such as the (present and historical) context of
the proposed speech; the potential effect on marginalized communities; the extent to which
the speech may assist in advancing the goals of white supremacists or others whose views are
contrary to our values; and the structural and power inequalities in the community in which
the speech will occur. At the same time, not defending such speech from official suppression
may also have harmful impacts, depending on the breadth or viewpoint-based character of
the suppression, the precedent that allowing suppression might create for the rights of other
speakers, and the impact on the credibility of the ACLU as a staunch and principled
defender of free speech. Many of these impacts will be difficult if not impossible to
measure, and none of them should be dispositive. But as an organization equally committed
to free speech and equality, we should make every effort to consider the consequences of
our actions, for constitutional law, for the community in which the speech will occur, and
for the speaker and others whose speech might be suppressed in the future."

I don't have a beef with them, they're just no longer a reliable advocate for free expression. Like almost every institution, they are being infected by young woke people that are changing the values of the organization. The ACLU didn't consider the harmful impacts of defending the free speech rights of white supremacists (and real white supremacists; not by the left's current definition that occasionally includes black people, hispanics, and asians). They just took the position that once free speech rights are in any way contingent upon the content of the message or the moral fitness of the Speaker, you don't have free speech anymore. I think that position is correct as a matter of logic and strategy and it's genuinely bad for society that the ACLU is backing down from it in anyway. That said, they are not just a free speech organization and it is possible (or hell, likely), that witih so much of hte left viewing "cancellation" as a preferred strategy, that they can't take an absolutist position on speech without hurting their efforts elsewhere. And that's not unique to the free speech issue. Lots of civil liberty wins in court have been for pretty objectively bad people. That's why I think single issue organizations may be the only ones that can be effective going forward.

 

[johnson86-1]

I was with you until the last sentence. Fact is (pesky things, those facts) mayor's don't have much control over the police. The (conservative) state legislatures see to it as much as they can, and politics takes care of the rest. We have conservative POLICY control when it comes to the police. And those policies killed George Floyd, and conservatives are resisting altering those policies. With great success (politically).

If extremely blue cities in pretty blue states keep ending up with what you call "conservative policy", maybe that's not the best descriptor of it? And I really don't think you can call problems caused by public sector unions "conservative".

 

[Podgy]

Just going by what you posted, buddy. I did readily admit a good point you made earlier, that I misread a post. I don't have a problem admitting good points. That's your problem, not mine, and it's entirely typical of the conservative mindset.

Maybe this guy makes good points on policing. But you didn't provide one. Own up to it maybe?

He's a respected scholar and respected criminologist. Have you even read a book on crime in America or can name a criminologist?. You're ignorant about a number of issues you express opinions on with absolute certainty, but you don't seem realize that. That's why it's a bit challenging responding to you. I'm expecting a level of understanding and knowledge on these issues, but you seem to have never gotten past simplistic stereotypes and shallow opinions. You also seem to think you're asking me serious questions that I should address because they'll lead to some contradiction I've posted or help me understand some issue in a new way. They're pretty silly, but you think they're thoughtful and incisive.

 

[The Cooterpoot]

Pellet grilz

 

[paindonthurt]

Too much for you to follow I guess. Maybe if I call the vets the "deep state" of the police force?

Yeah your opinion and logical reasoning is really hard for me to follow.

 

[Podgy]

Correct. Please tell your boom boom friend this.

Evidence doesn't matter. Data doesn't matter. I'm fully expecting Boom Boom to start telling us that the earth really is flat and that the moon is made of cheese. That post is coming.

 

[PooPopsBaldHead]

So with all these well reasoned and articulate points being made from opposing viewpoints in this thread, I have 2 questions:

1. Has anyone changed their mind even the slightest to become more sympathetic to the opposition?

2. Has anyone actually become further convinced that the other side is full of traitorous ******** ruining this country?

 

[Boom Boom]

He's a respected scholar and respected criminologist. Have you even read a book on crime in America or can name a criminologist?. You're ignorant about a number of issues you express opinions on with absolute certainty, but you don't seem realize that. That's why it's a bit challenging responding to you. I'm expecting a level of understanding and knowledge on these issues, but you seem to have never gotten past simplistic stereotypes and shallow opinions. You also seem to think you're asking me serious questions that I should address because they'll lead to some contradiction I've posted or help me understand some issue in a new way. They're pretty silly, but you think they're thoughtful and incisive.

Then......they should be easy to respond to. Maybe I am the one that will learn something from your response, have you considered that? Yet you type post after post and refuse to answer. This is all a pretty obvious deflection attempt. It's what cons do to maintain their faulty beliefs. Carry on, con.

 

[IBleedMaroonDawg]

There comes a point when you have to say it's time to let this go.

 

[Boom Boom]

Evidence doesn't matter. Data doesn't matter. I'm fully expecting Boom Boom to start telling us that the earth really is flat and that the moon is made of cheese. That post is coming.

Yep. Appeal to authority arguments, that's what shows evidence and reasoning.**

 

[Boom Boom]

If extremely blue cities in pretty blue states keep ending up with what you call "conservative policy", maybe that's not the best descriptor of it? And I really don't think you can call problems caused by public sector unions "conservative".

He's almost there....

 

[Boom Boom]

He's a respected scholar and respected criminologist. Have you even read a book on crime in America or can name a criminologist?. You're ignorant about a number of issues you express opinions on with absolute certainty, but you don't seem realize that. That's why it's a bit challenging responding to you. I'm expecting a level of understanding and knowledge on these issues, but you seem to have never gotten past simplistic stereotypes and shallow opinions. You also seem to think you're asking me serious questions that I should address because they'll lead to some contradiction I've posted or help me understand some issue in a new way. They're pretty silly, but you think they're thoughtful and incisive.

2nd take: if he's such a respected authority on the matter....then finally provide something from him that's worthy of respect and thought? Come on, surely you can see how facile that tweet was. Own up to it dude! All you're doing is whining.

And pro tip: the right wing is full of grifters that exist to play the role of "expert" but really just pump out the garbage they know there's a market for. Maybe this guy is one of them, maybe not. That one tweet you've shared says the former. If he's not, provide something from him that shows it! It's not up to me to do your work for you, slacker.

 

[OG Goat Holder]

He's a respected scholar and respected criminologist. Have you even read a book on crime in America or can name a criminologist?. You're ignorant about a number of issues you express opinions on with absolute certainty, but you don't seem realize that. That's why it's a bit challenging responding to you. I'm expecting a level of understanding and knowledge on these issues, but you seem to have never gotten past simplistic stereotypes and shallow opinions. You also seem to think you're asking me serious questions that I should address because they'll lead to some contradiction I've posted or help me understand some issue in a new way. They're pretty silly, but you think they're thoughtful and incisive.

Podgy is pretty reasonable in my opinion and I'm pretty sure he's left of center....

@Boom Boom......that should be a clue to you. You are doing an even worse impression of mstateglfr. Might just bow out of this one and stick to the economy. I enjoy your takes about that.

Now....go ahead and get your " BuT iTs GoAtZ !! 111" take in. But you really should take my advice.

 

[Boom Boom]

So with all these well reasoned and articulate points being made from opposing viewpoints in this thread, I have 2 questions:

1. Has anyone changed their mind even the slightest to become more sympathetic to the opposition?

2. Has anyone actually become further convinced that the other side is full of traitorous ******** ruining this country?

I've learned a good deal from these exchanges over the years. Knowledgeable opinion require honing to stay sharp. True, you have to suffer fools that will make an argument that one appointment from one mayor negates decades of history, training, set ways, etc. And you also have to suffer those that know that, but won't chime in because "their side". But if you dig, you can learn.

Otherwise, we just retreat to our echo chambers, right?

 

[Boom Boom]

Podgy is pretty reasonable in my opinion and I'm pretty sure he's left of center....

@Boom Boom......that should be a clue to you. You are doing an even worse impression of mstateglfr. Might just bow out of this one and stick to the economy. I enjoy your takes about that.

Now....go ahead and get your " BuT iTs GoAtZ !! 111" take in. But you really should take my advice.

Ok, I'm checking the guy out. Seems pretty questionable at first glance, but it will take a while to work through his blog.

I certainly would have checked him out much sooner had Podgy acknowledged my point. Rather than digging in and resorting to personal attacks.

 

[johnson86-1]

So with all these well reasoned and articulate points being made from opposing viewpoints in this thread, I have 2 questions:

1. Has anyone changed their mind even the slightest to become more sympathetic to the opposition?

2. Has anyone actually become further convinced that the other side is full of traitorous ******** ruining this country?

Not this thread or necessarily threads on this board, but I have had my position move over the years on drug legalization, Pigouvian taxes, prostitution legalization, immigration, whether we'd better off with Medicaid for all. I guess the flipside is that I've read a lot and most of it is not reasoned argument at all. There's no telling how many people I've read opine on minimum wage and I think exactly one person has made an argument that is logically sound in favor of a minimum wage, and basically nobody uses it, even though it's the best argument, because apparently it's not emotionally persuasive to people as arguments that just ignore economics and pretend nothing will be changed by minimum wage except workers below that will make more money.

Not so much now, but over time came to realize that people were less ignorant of "collateral damage" from their preferred policy and much more willing to accept unjust results for some individuals if they think there is a collective gain.

 

[Maroon Eagle]

So with all these well reasoned and articulate points being made from opposing viewpoints in this thread, I have 2 questions:

1. Has anyone changed their mind even the slightest to become more sympathetic to the opposition?

2. Has anyone actually become further convinced that the other side is full of traitorous ******** ruining this country?

1. Not from these threads but given my experiences as a person who was undiagnosed Aspergers for years and getting lots of crap from people on this board as well as in real life when I mention my Aspergers diagnosis, I’ve become amazingly tolerant towards folks I’ve disagreed with in the past.

And that’s saying something since I can be pretty blunt when arguing. Philosophically, I’m fairly conservative which isn’t all that unusual for folks on the spectrum because we tend not to like change.

One big problem though is that many people who identify as conservative are also monolithic and don’t accept different ways of thinking.

2. Nincompoops are everywhere along the political spectrum.

 

[paindonthurt]

So with all these well reasoned and articulate points being made from opposing viewpoints in this thread, I have 2 questions:

1. Has anyone changed their mind even the slightest to become more sympathetic to the opposition?

2. Has anyone actually become further convinced that the other side is full of traitorous ******** ruining this country?

Sympathy has nothing to do with it for me.

And I’m simply stating that small business owners and any other owners for that matter typically pay what is fair considering their ROI, risk, pay back, profit margin.

You don’t stay in business for long amounts of time by screwing over your employees.

 

[Boom Boom]

I don't have a beef with them, they're just no longer a reliable advocate for free expression. Like almost every institution, they are being infected by young woke people that are changing the values of the organization. The ACLU didn't consider the harmful impacts of defending the free speech rights of white supremacists (and real white supremacists; not by the left's current definition that occasionally includes black people, hispanics, and asians). They just took the position that once free speech rights are in any way contingent upon the content of the message or the moral fitness of the Speaker, you don't have free speech anymore. I think that position is correct as a matter of logic and strategy and it's genuinely bad for society that the ACLU is backing down from it in anyway. That said, they are not just a free speech organization and it is possible (or hell, likely), that witih so much of hte left viewing "cancellation" as a preferred strategy, that they can't take an absolutist position on speech without hurting their efforts elsewhere. And that's not unique to the free speech issue. Lots of civil liberty wins in court have been for pretty objectively bad people. That's why I think single issue organizations may be the only ones that can be effective going forward.

you are ignoring the 2nd part. By their standards, if not defending the case would lead to speech being "contingent upon the content", then they WILL take the case, no matter how much they may disagree with the content.

So you agree with them.....but you're going to castigated them anyway because agenda. Noted.

 

[BingleCocktail]

17 old piss