Morning Ed: Society (2016.09.21.W}

Almost, North Dakota State. Almost. (The cool thing about NDSU’s success is that a little more than ten years ago, they were in Division II. Now they’re 5-0 against the top tier.

I do sort of understand this, but it’s such a great song. It was kind of weird when former Bare Naked Lady dude sang it at former New Democratic Party leader’s funeral service, though. But it did kind of work.

Ura Mulally wants to know why parents put pictures of their kids on Facebook.

Rachel Lu argues that we no longer see children as regular people, and wonders when we might do so again.

The veil of ignorance, from front and back.

A look at Microsoft’s attempts at employing the autistic.

On the rise of Japanese virginity.

When I was a youngster, the video games were much more difficult than for you spoiled kids. Contra was actually unusually difficult. One of the things I remember from it was that it was one of very few where two players could work together simultaneous. Ikari Warriors was another one. What others?


Editor-in-Chief
Home Page Twitter Google+ Pinterest 

Will Truman is a former professional gearhead who is presently a stay-at-home father in the Mountain East. He has moved around frequently, having lived in six places since 2003, ranging from rural outposts to major metropolitan areas. He also writes fiction, when he finds the time. ...more →

Please do be so kind as to share this post.
TwitterFacebookRedditEmailPrintFriendlyMore options

101 thoughts on “Morning Ed: Society (2016.09.21.W}

  1. The Rachel Lu article seemed to be deeply ahistorical to me. When children were viewed as regular people, it was because they could be used for economic or social advancement purposes like regular adults. They were exploitable. When children’s economic and social advancement roles decreased because of an increase in wealth from the Enlightenment onward, they began being seen as special objects of affection for middle class households. During the 19th and 20th centuries, upper and working class households follow suit. And isn’t honestly better that adults who really don’t want to have children, aren’t obligated to have them.

    Japanese virginity: I’m beginning to suspect that most people really don’t have that great a sex life. What you really have in most countries is a small number of people of people having a lot of wild sex and wondering why everybody isn’t like them while at the same time doing their best to keep it an exclusive club because they want to be special. The number of heterosexual men who have lots of sex without being in a committed relationship is definitely a lot lower than the number of women.

    Report

    • Lee,
      America wants the wild sex to be something only the cool people do. Just look at Lemon Popsicle — that’s far from a given other places (in Israel, the ugly girls get invited to parties as “favors” for the chubby/ugly boys. Of course, in Israel, the whole “have sex before you join the army” is a thing).

      Camp Ramah and other social engineering spaces show pretty damn fucking clearly that the cool people having wild sex are quite willing and ready to “encourage” everyone else to do the same thing.
      http://forward.com/sisterhood/161285/wet-hot-american-jewish-sleepaway-camp/
      Read between the lines — if this is what they can get away with publishing without getting an inch of pushback, the truth is a whole lot… steamier.

      Report

      • As an alumni of one of those camps, I’m going to call BS on this. It was all talk, talk, talk. Even in retrospect, nobody wants to sound like they missed out. You’d think I’d see more of my bunkmates randomly missing in the middle of the night before bragging about their conquests, but it never lines up.

        The counselors between themselves… that’s another story.

        Report

        • FWIW, the most sexually active, depraved people in HS back in my day were the theater kids. The band was a close second. It’s not that surprising when you think about it, especially the theater kids. All those drama queens….:)

          From what I’ve been told, it’s not really changed that much (it’s more the choir than the band now, but I think that’s more a function of popularity). My wife teaches high school, so between teacher gossip and rousting the odd idiot couple off the stairs, well….

          Report

          • — Try hanging with a group of poly transgender lesbians. Good golly we’re a kinky bunch.

            But yeah, I recall the same dynamic. The drama kids had serious game, which actually shouldn’t be a surprise. We poor math nerds, on the other hand — what a sad lot we were, until we all figured out we’re trans and grew boobs.

            But anyway, last summer, at band camp…

            Report

    • Regarding the Rachel Lu article, I suspect that it is significant that it is in a Catholic publication. There is ideology lurking behind it. As for the “regular people” trope, I’m not sure how she defines that. When someone says he doesn’t like children, he is not comparing them with “regular people” but with “adults.” It is trivially easy to make a long list of ways in which children are different from adults. Confusing the two concepts is at best unhelpful.

      Report

      • That’s my suspicion to. A lot of Ms. Lu’s beliefs about children as regular people reflect more on her Catholicism than anything else. I get that the child-free people can be grating at times but some people opting out of parenthood isn’t the end of the world either and its better that the people who don’t want kids don’t have kids.

        Report

    • So far as I could tell, most of my high school friends had some kind of sexual contact. Myself, I at least had oral sex, and would have had PIV except for the trans thing. (Gender dysphoria made that hard for me — well, it made it not hard, if you get what I’m saying.) Anyway, dudes were having sex, although some certainly got more than others.

      I’m sure there was some amount of dishonesty, but we tended to know both the women and men, so I’m pretty sure it wasn’t utter BS.

      I suspect most guys have some number of partners before they settle down. A few “score tons.” A few get nothing.

      Much of this is situational. I’ve been to plenty of sex parties. The guys there are seldom the jock-bros you might expect. Honestly, I couldn’t say what they have that your average lonely chump does not.

      Report

      • Master of None wound up quoting a friend of mine… (naturally, because this is television, they put the white guy’s words in the black lesbian’s mouth. Not the First Time, either (my friend’s rather quotable) ).

        He’d say — with a smile, naturally — that he wasn’t there to change a lesbian’s sexuality (that would be immoral), just to give them an experience.

        He didn’t have anything of a rep in high school, because he didn’t like to boast.

        Report

  2. Ms. Mulally should go sit on a pinecone. I post to FB and Instagram because it allows family and friends to stay up to date on the boys much easier than most other means. My accounts are all private with few “followers” (around 100 on FB… Under 30 on Insta). It allows me to stay connected with other parent friends. And as someone who observes, documents, and shares about children for a living, using one of my few talents to help me and others better understand my own children is a huge boon.

    Also, it’s funny. Eat it, lady.

    Report

    • “Why does anyone plaster their social media accounts with photos of anything?”

      The article seems a bit of ‘I don’t get it, therefore nobody should do it’. Instagram’s popularity indicates that quite a few people find value in plastering social media with photos.

      Report

      • Based on my Facebook feed, most of the sharing seems to happen when the kids are babies or toddlers. As soon as the kids get old enough to be aware of what’s happening and have some sense of privacy, the number of photos drop.

        Report

        • Yep. Especially once they hit the teenage years and really care. :)

          Although it kind of swings the other way — once they hit 18 or 19, they stop caring as much because it’s more akin to posting pictures taken at a family gathering.

          They’ll untag themselves if they find the photo annoying enough, but by and large the only shared viewers are…family anyways.

          Report

            • I also picked out my son’s clothes, decided on his medical treatment and his education when he was five. Also what he ate, when he went to bed, when he got up, what TV he was allowed to watch, who he could be friends with…Why on earth would deciding whether to post a photograph of him be different?

              Report

    • Is it really easier? My inclination is that if I wanted to share photos with a select set of people I would set up an email list. My niece, who is more up to date on these things than am I, just spawned by great-niece, and emailed a link to a Google Photos page with the full panoply of photos from ultrasound to the present. I’m not saying these methods are better, but I don’t see how they are harder, and they might give somewhat better control of the photos than Facebook’s magical mystery ever-changing policies.

      Then again, I don’t get the whole “social media” thing. Facebook is good for tracking down people I have lost touch with, but it seems a decidedly inferior platform for anything else I want to do, including actually communicating with those people I tracked down on Facebook. In practice it seems to consist of a combination of political rants and minutiae of daily life. I log on about once every one or two months and remind myself why I don’t log on more often.

      Report

      • There are various methods that are going to be easier for different people. I was already a FB and Instagram user so there was no learning curve. Instagram was easy for my mom to download. My siblings were already on one or both platforms. Really, the only effort required was getting my mom on and Instagram is pretty user friendly if all you want to do is view pictures (and then text, “I LIKE THIS PICTURE!” to the person who posted it… we’re still working on that piece).

        Report

    • fwiw, i understand the kazzian reasons to do this stuff on social. it’s what my wife does. the article doesn’t seem to acknowledge this quotidian facet of modern life.

      i do not *personally* understand this, but i don’t personally do any of that stuff. it’s not my jam, and were it up to me, there’d be no fb pictures of my kid anywhere.

      i argued against it for a host of reasons, but a major one is why make facebook more money? fb exists for me to make money from it, not the other way around.

      i did not win this argument, obvs.

      Report

  3. 1. I have thought that about Hallelujah for a few years. It seems to be the song that every would be street troubador uses to prove their sensitive soul. Jeff Buckley version, Leonard Cohen is too ironic. Also everyone ignores the lyrics about sex and that the song is about lovers who had a very dramatic break up.

    2. Kid photos. What I have noticed is the rise of mommy blogging. The times ran an article by a woman who said she was stopping cold turkey when her dad called her out for oversharing about her son.

    Report

    • 1. Counsellor, counsellor. Its well established precedent that most people really don’t pay close attention to the lyrics at songs. Its why Every Breath You Take is seen as a romantic song. You need to be a very big music nerd or really ideological about something to care enough to pay close attention. Dancing to lyrical songs is becoming more popular in the West Coast swing community and many of those songs are not upbeat but people are still having joy through dancing to them.

      2. On the Internet everybody gets to feel special and think that their common sense thoughts are deep insights into human nature that nobody every had before.

      Report

    • Your point on #2 feels like an incomplete thought. Are you saying “Mommy blogging” is bad? Good? The cause? A symptom? Many Mommy bloggers go to great length to ensure the anonymity of their children.


      Have you ever read these blogs?

      Report

  4. The hot take I read yesterday:
    In the same way that it took a Barack Obama to convince Democrats that they’ve always supported vigorous kinetic actions in other countries, it’s going to take a Donald Trump to convince Republicans that they’ve always supported a Federalization of the Police Forces.

    Report

  5. As for co-op video games, the ones that became huge were the 4-person games like Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles or The Simpsons or the magnificently 6-person X-Men.

    Play through to the end, it’ll only cost $20 per person.

    It’ll be fun.

    (Double Dragon is another one that had a special emphasis on two player, though. If I recall correctly, there were characters that could grapple a player and the other player could free the first up… but without a second player, WHAM, you lost half your health.)

    Report

    • I wonder how much of the difficulty of early games was due to the coin-op roots. Gauntlet used to suck down quarters. They had incentive to not make it any easier. I still remember being in awe of someone much older than me shoveling money into Space Ace (or maybe it was Dragon’s Lair), both because of how expensive the game was and how difficult I found the game’s mechanics to be.

      Report

      • On the console side, a lot of it was also to make it so a game with a small amount of content would still take a long time to beat, either because you didn’t want people beating the rentals or because people would feel ripped off if they dropped $50 bucks on a game and beat it two days later.

        Report

  6. So my original comment disappeared so I’m trying again…

    The piece on kids in today’s society was a mix of hits and misses.

    I am increasingly bothered by the spaces that folks want to make off limits to children. My boys got shushed at an afternoon showing in a community-owned theater of “Inside Out”. I’ve seen screeds that say, no, really, children should be barred from airplanes. Trump infamously shamed a mother and her baby during a rally. At the same time, babies are ending up in places that, really, they shouldn’t be in. I’ve seen multiple theaters with signs saying that infants are banned from R-rated showings after 6pm out of respect for other guests. Why are babies being brought to R-rated movies AT ALL? And then you have the vast middle ground with unclear “rules” and entirely too much entitlement from both sides.

    Yes, you should be able to bring your child to a casual restaurant. No, that doesn’t mean you can let your child run wild the entire time. Yes, a fancy high-end restaurant can restrict children during prime dinner hours. No, that doesn’t mean those clientele can expect the same treatment at Chili’s during lunch.

    But the author makes a weird analogy between people who are uncomfortable with children for whatever reason and misogynists and other bigots. Many people don’t have children for a host of reasons — financial, health, professional. They should not be shamed for those choices. And interacting with children requires a very different mindset and, really, skill set than interacting with adults in a way that doesn’t really analogize to working with people of different genders, races, or sexual orientations. People who lack this mindset or skill set aren’t necessarily hateful monsters just because they shy away from situations in which they might be really uncomfortable (in large part because that discomfort is often borne out of accidentally doing harm to the child… a largely misplaced fear but a real one nonetheless).

    So, yea, we should make the world a little more friendlier to families with young children. But there are limits. And we shouldn’t chastise people who, for whatever reason, prefer the company of adults or ill positioned to have children as a major presence in their lives.

    Report


    • Yes, a fancy high-end restaurant can restrict children during prime dinner hours. No, that doesn’t mean those clientele can expect the same treatment at Chili’s during lunch.

      Uh, why? I’m not quite understanding the difference here. Is it something to do with dinner vs. lunch, or, more likely, is it because only high-end restaurants can ban children?

      Neither of those distinctions seems to make any sense. Should non-rich people be unable to eat somewhere without being bothered by children? Are non-wealthy people less sensitive to being annoyed by children? (I’m not saying those places *should*, but you seem to be arguing they *can’t*.)

      What exactly is the premise here?

      My boys got shushed at an afternoon showing in a community-owned theater of “Inside Out”.

      Someone shushing someone else talking during a movie is not some sort of plan to ban children from the grounds. It is telling someone that their behavior is unacceptable…which *talking during a movie is*, in general.

      You want to assert there are special rules for *kids* movies, and kids can talk during them, feel free.

      But that, in turn, actually sorta argues *against* your point…if I go and see a kid’s movie (Yes, without a kid. The idea is not absurd…I saw and enjoyed the Lego Movie in the theater, for example. And I generally get around to watching Disney movies, although not in theaters.), and discover that parents think it’s perfectly acceptable to let their kids talk during it, and those parents instead get annoyed other people are telling them to be quiet…

      …*I’m* going to start asking for showings where children are barred too!

      And then you have the vast middle ground with unclear “rules” and entirely too much entitlement from both sides.

      Actually, part of the problem is that there *isn’t* enough middle ground.

      Or, rather, part of the problem is that places are unwilling to tell parents ‘You are not properly managing your child, please leave.’

      The fact is, it’s not 90% of children that are causing the problem. A properly behaved kid at a restaurant bothers no one, and I really doubt anyone would care or even notice. And there are a bunch of parents that, when kids are misbehaving, will exit with them.

      It’s the 10% of kids that *aren’t* properly behaving and the parent either doesn’t care, or is utterly ineffectual at stopping them, and just stays there, that are the reason that some places have restrictions on kids.

      And, honestly, we’d be better off if instead everywhere (Well, not bars and stuff, but most places) let in kids, and just said ‘If your kid cannot behave, you will be asked to leave’ and actually *did that*.

      Report

      • Chilis caters to families. They have a kids’ menu. They have high chairs. They offer crayons and placemats for coloring. If you go there and are shocked — SHOCKED! — to find families with young children there, it is YOU who is in the wrong place.

        If Chilis wants to open a fast casual offshot that caters only to adults, I’m on board with that.

        Guess what young kids do during movies? They talk. Have you ever tried taking a 3-year-old to a movie and insisting he sit in silence the entire time? I highly doubt it. So if we are going to enforce the “NO TALKING!” rule during G-rated cartoon matinees, than we are essentially saying movie theaters are not places for children. Which seems insane to me. Yes, we should have different rules for G-rated movies and R-rated movies and different rules for matinees and evening showings.

        And you are wrong that it is just 10% of kids. Some people don’t want kids anywhere near them and don’t want kids doing kid stuff. Is an infant crying a problem? Should a parent immediately rush from the room with a crying infant? Doing so is essentially saying, “You are not welcome here.”

        If you haven’t been out in the world with children, you don’t know how hostile it can be to families with young children. Not everyone everywhere. But in many more places than it ought to be.

        Parents are blameless. As I said, both sides can be entirely too entitled.

        But you are taking a really simplistic approach to this and one that shows a complete lack of understanding of the realities of parenting and children.

        Report

        • I take my seven-year-old out to nice restaurants. I consider it an essential part of her breeding. In fact, usually she’s better behaved that the grown-ups sitting around us.

          My two-year-old? No way.

          I think a little common sense and courtesy goes a long way as far as this topic goes.

          Report

          • I wouldn’t take my boys (3.5 and 1.5) to a nice restaurant. I’d take them to Chilis. Well, not Chilis because Chilis sucks. I generally don’t take them anywhere that doesn’t have high chairs. In fact, I’ll usually call ahead to ask.

            I agree with common sense.

            The problem is… as evidenced here… I don’t know how common any of this sense is.

            A 3-year-old at a matinee showing of “Inside Out”? I think totally okay. David thinks otherwise. Who’s right?

            Report

        • Guess what young kids do during movies? They talk. Have you ever tried taking a 3-year-old to a movie and insisting he sit in silence the entire time? I highly doubt it. So if we are going to enforce the “NO TALKING!” rule during G-rated cartoon matinees, than we are essentially saying movie theaters are not places for children.

          Okay, first of all, Inside Out is PG, not G.

          Second, whether or not something is a matinee has no bearing on how disturbing talking is to other people.

          More importantly, movie theaters, actually theaters in general, *aren’t* places for people who cannot refrain from talking. That is literally an *explicit* etiquette rule of theaters, that you cannot talk during the show. Not only does everyone know this, they literally say it before the movie starts.

          I have no idea why you think the fact that a three year cannot refrain from talking means that everyone should have to put up with them talking.

          Other people paid to see that movie also.

          If you are not happy with movie theaters etiquette being something that excludes three year-olds by their very nature, it’s *you* who should be arguing for movie showings that explicitly remove that rule, not that etiquette rules somehow magically got removed due to a low age rating of the movie and the fact it’s a matinee.

          Instead, you’re surreally arguing that they *shouldn’t* be allowed to do specific screenings, that somehow *everyone* who wants to see a PG movie in the theater should have to deal with the risk of children talking through it, and how DARE they complain that they movie *they paid to see* had someone talking during it.

          And you are wrong that it is just 10% of kids. Some people don’t want kids anywhere near them and don’t want kids doing kid stuff.

          And what *you’re* imagining as this is ‘people complaining about kid sitting at table, coloring on placemat’, which totally ignores the reality that when *most* people complain about children, they’re complaining about children who have gotten out of their chair and running around.

          I am sure there *some* people who think children should not exist at all where they are.

          *That*, however, isn’t the reason some places wish to exclude children. The reason is that some parents allow their kids to run around totally unmanaged, bothering other people.

          Is an infant crying a problem? Should a parent immediately rush from the room with a crying infant?

          Where did the word ‘immediate’ appear in this discussion?

          Whether an infant crying is a problem is number of factors, like the general noise level of the noise, the noise level of the infant, how long it goes on, all sorts of things. If the infant will not *stop* and is loud enough it is disrupting normal conversations, yes, the parent should remove the infant.

          But, again, you’re trying to basically argue for the right for children to do things that would be *extremely* rude if adults did them, and that adults should basically have to put up with it, and how *dare* they try to make rules excluding the people you’re arguing have the right to be extremely rude and disruptive.

          There’s really only one side that’s entitled in this discussion. It’s the side that’s arguing that they have the right to have children talking in movie theaters and disrupting meals.

          The other side (Once you remove the mostly imaginary fraction of people who just don’t like the existence of children anywhere near them.) mostly just wants to not be bothered by other people, and not bother them…which is basically how society works. I don’t bother the people sitting at the next table, and they don’t bother me. I don’t talk during the movie, and the guy in front of me doesn’t talk during the movie. And it seems very strange to grant children an blanket exception to this rule.

          Report

          • “But, again, you’re trying to basically argue for the right for children to do things that would be *extremely* rude if adults did them, and that adults should basically have to put up with it, and how *dare* they try to make rules excluding the people you’re arguing have the right to be extremely rude and disruptive.”

            Well, children and adults are different so why shouldn’t the rules be different? We don’t let children drive or vote or drink alcohol. Why?

            I’m not saying that places can’t enact rules. But if the rules are increasingly restrictive of families with young children then, yes, we can conclude that our society is not child-friendly.

            Why am I focusing on matinees? Because children aren’t going to be at later showings. You are going to a *kids* movie. Do you not expect kids to be there? And to act like kids? If you want to see a kids movie absent kids, go to a nighttime showing, which the theaters offer precisely for folks like yourself.

            I’m okay with carving out spaces that are adults-only. I said as much. But I’m also okay with saying that certain places are intended for families and young children and that people who are bothered by that should look elsewhere… just like families with young children should look at places other than the adults-only ones.

            Report

            • Well, children and adults are different so why shouldn’t the rules be different? We don’t let children drive or vote or drink alcohol. Why?

              You realize the logic there actually leads to *disallowing* children in public, right?

              Why am I focusing on matinees? Because children aren’t going to be at later showings. You are going to a *kids* movie. Do you not expect kids to be there? And to act like kids? If you want to see a kids movie absent kids, go to a nighttime showing, which the theaters offer precisely for folks like yourself.

              Just because you *wish* movie theater etiquette was different due to it being a matinee of a PG movie, does not actually mean it is.

              I can find *dozens* of movie theater etiquette guides saying not to bring noisy children. None of them have any sort of *implicit* exception based on the time or rating of a movie. (There are a few that talk about how some theaters have kid-friendly showing that are *explicitly* exempt.)

              Can you find a *single* discussion of movie theater etiquette *anywhere* that creates some sort of implicit talking exception based on time and rating?

              Or is that, as I said, just something you, and other parents, *wished* existed?

              Incidentally, all the pre-movie bumpers are available online. For example, this one plays at my nearby theaters: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNg453ghzpc

              Interesting fact: That screen is actually the cue to the projectionist to start the actual movie (And automatically opens the screen curtains wider, if applicable.), and thus it plays before every movie. Even, yes, the G and PG ones. (Also, the sponsor changes, and sometimes it doesn’t have a sponsor and just tell you to do it. That’s not some Sprint phrasing.) [EDIT: Just to clarify, by ‘actual movie’, I mean the previews. The unique per-showing video, instead of the looping video that shows on all screens otherwise.]

              ‘Please be quiet and courteous to others and silence your cell phones now’.

              People are told, literally before every movie, to be quiet. (Note ‘quiet’ isn’t the same as ‘no talking’, and I am not saying it is.)

              I’m okay with carving out spaces that are adults-only. I said as much. But I’m also okay with saying that certain places are intended for families and young children and that people who are bothered by that should look elsewhere… just like families with young children should look at places other than the adults-only ones.

              You’re also okay with *appropriating* places that have pretty strict and explicit etiquette rules and declaring they do not apply in certain circumstances, mostly when you don’t want them to.

              Report

                • So what you’re saying is you *can’t* come with any actual evidence that movie theater etiquette not applying to certain movies.

                  Instead you have just decided to pretend that me pointing out the problem with *your* example (You strangely asserted that the fact we ban children from all sorts of things in society leads to the conclusion ‘we should have special rules allowing children to do things we don’t let adults’, when that logic actually leads to ‘we should ban children from other things’.) meant that *I* was suggesting it, when I have clearly suggested no such thing.

                  In fact, from the very very start, I said that I do not agree with banning children from *anything*. (Well, obviously, we were not talking about tobacco and alcohol and stuff at the time. That’s different.) As I said, decisions to allow children in places should not be based on age, but on whether or not any specific children can comport themselves within societal norms, and if they cannot, they should be removed.

                  And your decision to *pretend* that I was suggesting we shouldn’t allow children in public is clearly because *you cannot locate any evidence that there’s any exception to being noisy in movie theaters*.

                  I have stated, and provided evidence, that it is extremely rude to be noisy in movie theaters, and everyone basically agrees on that, and in fact that is literally a rule of movie theaters. I can provide more evidence if you want, or you can just google ‘theater etiquette’.

                  You have provided no evidence that there is any sort of exemption based on the rating of the movie and time. You keep *insisting* there is one, but you refuse to provide any documentation of this. There’s tons of sites out there that that talk about ‘theater etiquette’, and the only exception *I’ve* ever read about are specific ‘family friendly showing’, not some sort of blanket rule for low-age-rated movie matinees.

                  Which, again, leads to the truth I feel I must point out: You think it is okay for you(1) to be extremely rude to others in a movie theater. And you feel this should somehow be *okay*, that you and your child are, (to use the word you brought in), *entitled* to see the movie, and it doesn’t matter how much this impacts *other people* trying to see the movie.

                  The only saving grace is you’re having a lot of trouble *defending* that idea.

                  Oh, and here’s a fun question: If for some reason it’s okay to talk during all matinees of ‘children’s movies’, when are the *older* children, who can contain themselves, supposed to see it so *they* aren’t annoyed by someone talking? The 11 year-olds and whatnot. *They* probably can’t watch an 8 o’clock showing, and *they* probably don’t want some 3 year old yammering behind them either, being old enough to be following the plot.

                  1) *You*, not your child. Your child is not in control of where they are and, really a three-year old is not really in control of their behavior.

                  Report

    • “Charlotte officials are attempting to “change the narrative” after violent protests in the city Tuesday following the shooting death of the black man at the hands of police officers.

      At a news conference in reaction to official statements, regional civil rights leaders speaking on behalf of the family said the narrative is right, and police killed an innocent man.

      Kerr Putney, chief of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department, said at a press conference Wednesday morning that Scott, 43, had a gun in his hand when he was shot by police officers. A family member has claimed he was unarmed and reading a book when officers first approached him.

      “I can tell you a weapon was seized,” Putney said. “I can tell you we did not find a book.”

      Putney said there is video of the incident, but he had not viewed all of it, and was basing his assessment on witness and police statements.”

      “Don’t believe their rumors. Believe our rumors.”

      I don’t know what happened and won’t pretend to. But it strikes me as odd that the chief has video, has not viewed it, and is making definitive statements about what happened. Watch the video. Release the video.

      Report

      • I absolutely 100% agree that the video ought to be released.

        Whenever they don’t immediately release the video, I always assume it’s because a policeman is shown to unequivocally be in the wrong.

        Oh, and that goes double for “We have video showing the suspect to be unequivocally to be in the wrong butyoucantseeit.”

        Report

          • The *ONLY* argument that I could see making any sense at all is “hey, you might not have noticed but I’m kinda busy here and it’s not like it’s on youtube so I can watch it while someone else is driving me from crisis to press conference to another crisis!”

            That said, if they don’t release the video, I don’t trust anything they say about it.

            Report

      • Putney said there is video of the incident, but he had not viewed all of it, and was basing his assessment on witness and police statements.”

        You know why I suspect he’s lying? That bolded bit.

        “Oh yeah, one of the cops I’m in charge of shot a guy and it kicked off riots. And there’s video of the whole thing, but gosh darn it, I just can’t spare a half hour to watch it all.”

        “I have not watched all of it” is code for “I have watched all of it, I am either lying directly or by implication about some of it for short term gain, and when it’s inevitably released if the whole incident hasn’t gone down the memory hole, I can use this as an excuse. I wasn’t lying, I merely hadn’t gotten to that part”.

        Report

Comments are closed.