Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Trekkin]

The pragmatist looks at both.

Ideally, you correct the problem by prevention. (children dont suffer, and thus do not get pushed to breaking, so violence never happens)  For the cases where prevention is insufficient (you can never completely eliminate the causal factors of violence, so violence will always manifest, just at lower baseline levels), you need well defined protocols.

Sure, but we'll never get those protocols, because we have, as a society, forgotten how to solve things. We conflate debate with appeasement and mock the idea of empathy, let alone open-mindedness; we skip beyond Bulverism directly to explaining how our opponents are not only stupid but irredeemably so, how their ideals are not only wrong but poisonous even to listen to. "Finding common ground" has become the new "think of the children"; it's so fun to mock, and we (think we) sound so witty doing so, that we've forgotten it can ever be earnestly believed in, let alone tried.

There was a time when there were ideas that were not contemptible, debate that was more than a showcase for our own self-evident intellectual superiority, and a difference between respect and weakness. Perhaps we could have come up with a solution then. Not a perfect solution, to be sure, nor a solution that would have withstood the scorn of scornful people, but at least something we could go on to defend trying.

But not now. We're so used to being helpless that we're more concerned with being right about why everything sucks (or, more specifically, being right about why everyone else is wrong about why everything sucks) than actually doing anything. Perhaps rectifying that should be among our priorities.

[bloop_bleep]

The pragmatist looks at both.

Ideally, you correct the problem by prevention. (children dont suffer, and thus do not get pushed to breaking, so violence never happens)  For the cases where prevention is insufficient (you can never completely eliminate the causal factors of violence, so violence will always manifest, just at lower baseline levels), you need well defined protocols.

Sure, but we'll never get those protocols, because we have, as a society, forgotten how to solve things. We conflate debate with appeasement and mock the idea of empathy, let alone open-mindedness; we skip beyond Bulverism directly to explaining how our opponents are not only stupid but irredeemably so, how their ideals are not only wrong but poisonous even to listen to. "Finding common ground" has become the new "think of the children"; it's so fun to mock, and we (think we) sound so witty doing so, that we've forgotten it can ever be earnestly believed in, let alone tried.

There was a time when there were ideas that were not contemptible, debate that was more than a showcase for our own self-evident intellectual superiority, and a difference between respect and weakness. Perhaps we could have come up with a solution then. Not a perfect solution, to be sure, nor a solution that would have withstood the scorn of scornful people, but at least something we could go on to defend trying.

But not now. We're so used to being helpless that we're more concerned with being right about why everything sucks (or, more specifically, being right about why everyone else is wrong about why everything sucks) than actually doing anything. Perhaps rectifying that should be among our priorities.

Related to this discussion... how?

I don't disagree with you, I in fact was trying to say the same thing a while back when people started calling citizens that live in red states irredeemable idiots.

[wierd]

The pragmatist looks at both.

Ideally, you correct the problem by prevention. (children dont suffer, and thus do not get pushed to breaking, so violence never happens)  For the cases where prevention is insufficient (you can never completely eliminate the causal factors of violence, so violence will always manifest, just at lower baseline levels), you need well defined protocols.

Sure, but we'll never get those protocols, because we have, as a society, forgotten how to solve things. We conflate debate with appeasement and mock the idea of empathy, let alone open-mindedness; we skip beyond Bulverism directly to explaining how our opponents are not only stupid but irredeemably so, how their ideals are not only wrong but poisonous even to listen to. "Finding common ground" has become the new "think of the children"; it's so fun to mock, and we (think we) sound so witty doing so, that we've forgotten it can ever be earnestly believed in, let alone tried.

There was a time when there were ideas that were not contemptible, debate that was more than a showcase for our own self-evident intellectual superiority, and a difference between respect and weakness. Perhaps we could have come up with a solution then. Not a perfect solution, to be sure, nor a solution that would have withstood the scorn of scornful people, but at least something we could go on to defend trying.

But not now. We're so used to being helpless that we're more concerned with being right about why everything sucks (or, more specifically, being right about why everyone else is wrong about why everything sucks) than actually doing anything. Perhaps rectifying that should be among our priorities.

There's a reason I called my short 4 bullet list "radical"

It flew over most people's heads.

[Trekkin]

Related to this discussion... how?

I don't disagree with you, I in fact was trying to say the same thing a while back when people started calling citizens that live in red states irredeemable idiots.

Because it's why we're still going to have people faux- mystified that this is still a problem in [arbitrary future year] because [collective term for people they disagree with] are somehow still too thick to solve it; we don't lack for solutions, just in the ability to consider them.

[martinuzz]

What's going on in Texas? 5 bomb attacks, for a total of 2 dead and 6 injured people?
Four mail order package bombs, and one tripwire IED, dayum.
I hope they can find and catch who did this sooner than they did the Unabomber. 17 years of five or more bomb attacks per month doesn't sound very nice.

[Flying Dice]

Yep. They've got federal profilers down there trying to fish a lead out of that mess.

[smjjames]

What's going on in Texas? 5 bomb attacks, for a total of 2 dead and 6 injured people?
Four mail order package bombs, and one tripwire IED, dayum.
I hope they can find and catch who did this sooner than they did the Unabomber. 17 years of five or more bomb attacks per month doesn't sound very nice.

Well, this guy (or girl, if that's the case) is extremely active compared to the Unabomber I think. Anyways, whoever it is, is showing a great deal of sophistication.

There's been another one http://cnn.it/2IECm7C , it's moving so fast that either there is a bomb factory somewhere or they're just really prolific.

[Folly]

Austin Texas now reporting the seventh bomb this month believed to be in connection to the same serial bomber.
Is this guy going for some kind of record?

[smjjames]

I think this has been the sixth, at least the sixth one that exploded. Or maybe it was the seventh. There have also been reports of at least one other unexploded earlier and I think an unexploded was mentioned this time as well.

I have no idea if it's a record or going for one, but it also seems like they're either really good at putting them together quickly or they have some kind of bomb factory, theres been several in just the past few days, which means at least one bomb made a day, maybe.

[Dunamisdeos]

Might have stockpiled em and is sending them out piecemeal.

[smjjames]

Hm, I'm seeing something about it being an incenidary device rather than an explosive. Whoever this person is, he is obviously trained in bomb making.

edit: Great, do they now have a copycat to deal with? http://cnn.it/2psq1Li

[Frumple]

Like... it's possible, but also not. Depends on exactly what the explosives or whatev' are. Some stuff you can conceptually pick up method and get decent enough at it to get a stockpile going without explicit training on the subject. Not like the materials are terribly hard to get, sometimes, and the know-how is floating about. Still fairly likely to end up with you missing bits doing it outside a joint specifically set up for bomb making, but it can happen.

[Max™]

Someone running away seems like it'd be the most common reason to tackle, but if stopping them without needing to resort to tackling is available (NOT GUNS! Using a taser is probably not a good idea), then it should be used.

@MSH: Did they ever teach you how to stop and restrain someone running away in martial arts?

I practiced a last resort type of technique for most of my early life which is pretty much guaranteed to keep you safe as long as the other person doesn't have like... a gun, but as it is a martial secret I must put it in spoilers which only those sufficiently prepared to follow certain paths should click, and as this can be a very intense and draining technique it is best used after dedicating years to it:

Spoiler: The first part is (click to show/hide)

...running the fuck away, that is also the only part.

Though I would say that in the hypothetical where a tackle was being applied and resulted in injuries, my technique would look kinda silly.

Spoiler: Well, it would if used properly (click to show/hide)

I mean, you could just stand there and get the same effect instead of fleeing in the opposite direction.

Is the kid currently trying to kill someone, or just succesfully attacked someone before running away(hopefully not with scissors!), or expressed interest in suicide at a different location?

If not then what is the worst outcome of them getting away, I mean, I personally bolted out of school when they tried to escort me to detention because I laughed and said fuck off to the idea of remaining after the bell.

The next day they tried again but this time they had another teacher pre-emptively blocking off the nearby exit so I just sprinted down to the little courtyard and hopped over the barbed wire fence they needed to put in because there was a little space between two of the buildings that should have enclosed it.

Afterwards they resorted to putting me in some in-class suspension shit and tried to restrain me from leaving after the bell, calmly telling someone "do not touch me" when you both know they aren't allowed to touch you (what, did they give me a handbook of rules and expect me to not read it?) is a surprisingly effective method by itself, and ultimately they gave up on trying to make me stick around after classes. I mean, they already had to threaten siccing truant officers on my mother to make sure I even attended during school hours, once I explained that there was no way I would quietly go along with them overstepping their bounds like that they dropped it.

Probably wouldn't get the same results now rather than what... 25... 26 years ago, but students aren't property, much less that of the school; they don't have arbitrary rights to exert control over all aspects of student behavior, especially not through violence, they're civilians too.

[Maximum Spin]

If not then what is the worst outcome of them getting away,

I think the "worst outcome" they're currently concerned about is that the kid successfully runs away, gets hit by a bus or something while technically still under the school's responsibility, and then suddenly there's a law named after him that says you have to have border patrol agents at every door.

[Max™]

Perhaps, but if you chase someone while they are running, they're going to be more likely to get injured during the chase. If you're trying to protect kids from injury it seems counterproductive to argue "well they might get hit by a bus or shot by gang members or join the republican party if we didn't chase after them" because you generally know where they will be going if they get out, plus you can kinda expect they'll be back the next day. If your job in any way involves protecting kids and your go-to response for anything short of "armed student attacking other students" is tackling them, you need to find a different line of work, you're not qualified for this one.