Rusty Shackleford

The poor nice ones get beaten by the naughty rich ones.

Some of the greatest Americans of all time were anti-fascists.

Not many people do. Also, there is a device known as a maser that’s used in astronomy, which is microwave amplification through stimulated emission of radiation.

Is it a bad take to say that I hated both of the characters in that film?

“Fun” little tidbit, the Mexican cartels call the guy who reduces bodies to a slurry “un pozolero” (a soup-maker) when they need to get rid of a body. Actual Pozole is quite delicious though.

Settle down, tough guy.

Citizens and residents of the United States don’t deserve to be exploited by foreign billionaires, to keep in context to the comment you originally responded to.

What you said implies a justification for the exploitation of the “American poor” (OP’s words) due to or for the “karma for the last century” (your words). If we replace “karma”, with “comeuppance” or “consequences” to keep in line with the “American context”, it still sounds stupid.

So once again, to be clear without sarcasm, an entire nation of millions of people who trace their identities and heritages from every corner of the planet don’t deserve said exploitation from both domestic and foreign billionaires.

As an aside, the “American definition” of karma comes from an incorrect definition from the first British translation of the Bhagavad Gita by Sir Charles Wilkins in 1785 during their colonial occupation of India. I commented about it because of how stupid it sounded to me, given my background and understanding of its concept.

Is this where I say, “NEXT”?

Who needs to pivot?

If we’re playing the game of false equivalencies, my sarcasm said everything that needed to be said about your blithe presumptions about “karma” for entire nation of people.

Also, “karma” doesn’t actually mean “comeuppance”, or “consequences”; it means (roughly) “work”.

Source: I have Northwestern Brahmin Indian blood, and was made to thoroughly study the Vedas, Puranas, Ramayan, Mahabharat (and the Bhagavad Gita contained within it).

Ooooh, I remember this game!

Yes, we average Americans are certainly guilty of the sins of previous generations.

Even first generation Americans, who are children of immigrants, like me, and had no choice in where they were born.

Naturally, we are de facto guilty of everything some rich assholes and our government’s policies have done to the world, and we must pay for it with our lives and livelihoods.

Oh, also, none of the contributions in the sciences, arts, and literature from normal Americans ever made life better for people around the world.

We are a cancer upon the planet and must be exterminated. It’s just “our karma”. We americans are bad and deserve all the bad things in life.

Am I doing it right?

This is the worst one of this era.

I will hunt you for sport.

I don’t know what’s so hard to understand about “you’re not allowed to put your hands on someone unless they put their hands on you first”, but go off, I guess.

I’m not defending this guy, and yes, as I stated laws can be changed to account for new technologies and new definitions of public spaces and privacy rights.

The point I’m making is that people shouldn’t start altercations that may have permanent consequences over their anger control problems, including the woman in question.

You can’t put your hands on people unless they put their hands on you first, tough guy.

Are we talking about the hypothetical being posed or a different one?

TLDR: The law and it’s philosophical/moral foundation and practical application doesn’t run on what you think, and society is better for it.

Once again, the law says you aren’t protected from being recorded in a public space, attractive or not. There’s a plethora of ways to legally record people overtly and covertly in public. The law also says you can’t grab other people’s stuff and destroy it to prevent being recorded.

If the guy was assaulting her or disturbing the peace, she’d be justified in using violence to defend herself. She also had the option to talk to a cop and accuse this guy of harassment, which he was doing and others may have recorded evidence of that. But one is not morally or legally justified in starting fights, only finishing them as self-defense. The amount of force legally acceptable falls under the umbrella of the concept of “reasonable application of force” within what’s commonly known as a “force escalation continuum”.

So, no “creeps” shouldn’t be allowed to record women as that would constitute harassment, but it’s better to go through proper legal channels than pretend to be a tough-guy/girl and start an altercation that may have permanent consequences.

The Corporatist Oligarchy wants him in the presidency (for now).

I can see an angle when refusal is going to escalate things badly for reasons that could be understood.

Whatever “angle” you see is your mind trying to justify forcefully grabbing someone’s property to destroy it.

I don’t like surveillance either.

But you can’t go around forcefully breaking other people’s stuff unless it threatens your well being at that moment.

Her “ass-kicking” would only be acceptable to the point where she could be detained and arrested.

The guy with smart glasses could also be arrested and charged with disturbing the peace depending on what his exact actions were and if there’s recordings of him.

Forcefully grabbing someone’s property to break it is assault.

Fuck internet points.

When in public, you can be recorded. Your permission isn’t required. Public spaces belong to all. People have the right to film, take photos, and record audio. If you don’t want that, campaign for legislation to change it. “Rudeness” isn’t a legal term. If you can’t tolerate being recorded in a public space, even “rudely”, leave. Go somewhere else. If you assault someone recording you in public, you will potentially get the shit kicked out of you by that person, bystanders, and/or cops.

The state, in a legalistic framework, has a near-monopoly on justified escalation to physical violence. The person recording you has to be assaulting you first or disturbing the peace to a degree that it endangers you or other people’s safety in order for your violence to be justified as defense.

You can’t start a fight legally, but you can finish one. “Rudeness” isn’t a good enough reason to start swinging.

So again, control yourself.