Randomness thread, part two.

[boost]

Real life "The Wire" in article form: https://theintercept.com/2016/10/06/...-didnt-happen/

[The Bean Counter]

@wuf: suspect more placebo than reality, but if it works for you then all good. May give it a try myself, as been struggling recently in spots where I really want to impress somebody. Never used to be a problem, but the physical effects aren't the best and alcohol is the only fix I've found so far.

Take it easy long enough and you want the purpose of work. Work too hard and you long for the relief of beach life.

The grass is always greener...

This. I think most humans have a need for routine in the same way some need religion.

[wufwugy]

^^ I'll take it! Placebo or no.

The evidence for theanine and anxiety is strong enough to give it a go (or to warrant more research). At least IIRC. I wouldn't have bought it had I not found reason to think that.

[bigred]

I actually went to the doc on the back of an anxiety attack and she told me that I was withdrawing from alcohol.

Just an fyi - drink a bunch and there are side effects.

Yup. People say the 30s are the golden age (just turned 32) but I've found it to be slowly acknowledging and starting to combat the bad habits I've established in my 20s. Work/life imbalance, better communication, life goals, health, all wrapped in an alcohol blanket.

[MadMojoMonkey]

all I really wanna do is live in a beach Hut on a nice hot island, play guitar, read books and surf twice a day.

I'm pretty sure that's a real thing that people do.

Awesome and practical.

I approve.

[bigred]

I'm pretty sure that's a real thing that people do.

Awesome and practical.

I approve.

You should consider Siargao Island in the Philippines. You could do this for a month on the cheap to check it out. Good food, small island town (General Luna), and lots of surfing. My wife and I were there last week.

Edit: I quoted the wrong post. I forgot how to forum.

[rong]

It's not the lack of existence of a Hut on a beach with surf that is holding me back.

[rong]

But Google says your choice of island is just fine.

[rong]

I've spent the last half hour lusting after that island. So cheap. I found a nice little Hut at £12 per night. I imagine I'd get a better deal I'd I stayed for 3 months. Surf looks fantastic, I need this in my life. Wondering how good an Internet connection I can get amd if I can work remotely.

[bigred]

I've spent the last half hour lusting after that island. So cheap. I found a nice little Hut at £12 per night. I imagine I'd get a better deal I'd I stayed for 3 months. Surf looks fantastic, I need this in my life. Wondering how good an Internet connection I can get amd if I can work remotely.

Internet was questionable in a lot of places. Some of the bigger resorts have better connections. My wife facetimed (audio only) her mom a few times and it was fine on a generally unreliable internet connection.

THE place to stay and eat is Kermits. We didn't stay there because it was sold out months in advance (we were thee in primer surfing time during their annual surf tournament) but we ate there for dinner every other night. It has a good vibe and representation of the island. A bunch of people from all over the globe who are easy going and leaning towards surf culture.

[wufwugy]

lol surf culture. the ten has been hanged brah

[wufwugy]

[OngBonga]

Our town is going into meltdown because a 13 y/o kid put on a clown mask and stood outside macdonalds looking at people.

It's just a kid, yet the morons of this town seem to think the solution is to "punch him in the face", "throw him in the canal", and other such reactions.

Clowns are bad, but slapping kids about is civilised.

Fucking mouthbreathers.

[rong]

Not so straightforward.

If someone was stood outside a shop wearing a scary clown mask and staring at my 5 and 7 yr old daughters, which would scare the fuck out of them, I'd go over there and rip the mask of his face and tell him to either apologize to my kids (so they see its just a normal person being silly and nothing to be worried about) or get taken outside and given a slap.

[OngBonga]

Even if when you remove the mask you see a frightened 13 y/o boy? You're still gonna slap him?

The reaction of people is astonishing. I get that it's not straightforward, but what people are saying is a whole lot worse than a twat kid trying to scare people.

[rong]

No, I'd expect the 13 yr old boy to apologize to my kids. But yeah granted I wouldn't actually slap him, I'd more likely call the police and hold him there until they arrived.

That kinda shit needs to be dealt with, you can't have teenagers running around terrifying little kids and thinking it's ok or that there's no repercussions.

[OngBonga]

You're already on shaky ground just holding him there against his will. Can you prove beyond any reasonable doubt that a crime has been committed? Because if you can't (and it's going to be very difficult indeed) then you could be committing a crime by restricting his freedom.

Wearing a mask in public is not a crime in itself. There has to be criminal intent. If you can prove that he is causing "alarm and distress", and I empahasise the word "prove", then a crime is probably being committed. But it's in the same ball park as "breach of the peace", at worst the police will drive the kid home and expect the parents to deal with it. That's if the police even bother to get there within ten minutes or whatever. Could take a lot longer. How patient are you willing to be? What if the kid phones his dad and his dad is an unpleasant man who disagrees with your decision to force his kid to wait for the police?

Is it really worth doing anything other than telling the kid to get a life?

[Savy]

Since when do you have the right not to be scared. Sounds like the kid is just pissing around having some fun. It's coming up to Halloween your kids are going to get scared, it's kind of the point. If you explain that to them then they're on a better ground than being afraid of the dark at 20.

[bigred]

Rong,

What's your address, just curious, bro

Totally not ordering scary clown masks on Amazon right now.

[OngBonga]

Yeah I think that overprotecting children can have a negative effect. I mean what happens when Daddy starts squealing like a girl because there's a spider in the bath? Little Bobby thinks spiders are scary, and then he squeals like a girl when he's an adult and encounters a spider.

If the parent reacts with horror when the child is scared, then it reinforces the fear. Tell the kid not to be fucking scared of stupid shit, and maybe he'll stop wetting the bed before he's a teenager.

[bigred]

Sounds like Bobby needs a paddlin....

[Poopadoop]

Ya, community's reaction seems overblown. It's not like he poured coke on someone's head.

If he scared my kids I might tell him to stop being such a moron, but lol at holding him for the cops. He's just a kid being a knob (emphasis on 'just a kid').

[bigred]

That jerk kid staring there wearing a mask. That's breaking like so many laws. At least like zero laws.

[OngBonga]

It's made national news. There's a picture in the Mirror of a 13 y/o lad wearing a mask, lurking behind the drive thru sign at maccies down the road, with the headline "killer clown". It's utterly ridiculous. The daft thing is, this kid is now a legend to his mates.

[OngBonga]

Sounds like Bobby needs a paddlin....

Yeah bitch, have some negative reinforcement.

Scared of stupid shit? I'll make you scared of old men with paddles, you stupid little cunt.

[Poopadoop]

It's made national news. There's a picture in the Mirror of a 13 y/o lad wearing a mask, lurking behind the drive thru sign at maccies down the road, with the headline "killer clown". It's utterly ridiculous. The daft thing is, this kid is now a legend to his mates.

That's the kind of media reaction you expect in the US, not so much here. Also, someone would've shot him in the face if it was in America.

[OngBonga]

Fucking national news. Really.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/killer-...FB_mirror_main

[boost]

Rong, you realize you're calling for "safe spaces" right?

[Poopadoop]

Fucking national news. Really.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/killer-...FB_mirror_main

Oh I thought he was just walking around. Didn't realise he was hiding and jumping out at people.

So yea, that kid is way out of line. I wouldn't object to someone smacking him to be honest.

[boost]

Oh I thought he was just walking around. Didn't realise he was hiding and jumping out at people.

So yea, that kid is way out of line. I wouldn't object to someone smacking him to be honest.

If he jumps out, and in the moment you clock him, sure, that's fair game. But if you have a moment to think, and you punitively strike him, you're out of line and should be charged with assault.

[Poopadoop]

If he jumps out, and in the moment you clock him, sure, that's fair game. But if you have a moment to think, and you punitively strike him, you're out of line and should be charged with assault.

I wouldn't smack him myself. But I wouldn't be in a hurry to testify against someone who did either.

[OngBonga]

Yeah don't get me wrong, if someone's reflex is to punch him in the face, that's fair game. That's the risk you're taking when you play pranks of this nature on people.

But it's just a prank. He's hiding behind a sign and poking his head round to make people ask "did I just see that?". It's actually quite funny where it's not aggressive.

The way the media are presenting this actually puts more fear in people than the prank itself. People are led to believe it's much more sinsiter than it is. Why is it ok for the media to scare the hell out of people like this, when it's not ok for a kid to play a prank?

[Poopadoop]

He's hiding behind a sign and poking his head round to make people ask "did I just see that?". It's actually quite funny where it's not aggressive.

Do we know that's what he was doing? I'm not being argumentative I just don't know.

Obv. it makes a difference if he's doing that versus jumping out with his hands waving.

[Savy]

Do we know that's what he was doing? I'm not being argumentative I just don't know.

Obv. it makes a difference if he's doing that versus jumping out with his hands waving.

Even if he's jumping out at people it's pretty harmless but if someone cracks him one in the moment that's his risk. It's also completely understandable for the police to be called and him moved on because he shouldn't be doing it.

[boost]

Why is it ok for the media to scare the hell out of people like this, when it's not ok for a kid to play a prank?

This is a pretty sweet line you took here. If you could aggregate the anxiety caused by the two parties, the news organization and the boy, the media is clearly far more egregious.

[Poopadoop]

Even if he's jumping out at people it's pretty harmless

Is it still harmless if it's done to little kids? How about an old lady? Is giving them nightmares or giving her a heart attack ok 'cause it's a 'harmless' prank?

[OngBonga]

Do we know that's what he was doing? I'm not being argumentative I just don't know.

Obv. it makes a difference if he's doing that versus jumping out with his hands waving.

There's no evidence to suggest he was aggressively approaching people. In this photo, he's hiding from cars. That hardly demonstrates a threat to anyone safety.

[rong]

How do you know it's just a kid until you've forcibly removed the mask?

[OngBonga]

This is a pretty sweet line you took here. If you could aggregate the anxiety caused by the two parties, the news organization and the boy, the media is clearly far more egregious.

I've been trying to ram this point home on the local facebook page. Sadly, the townsfolk in my hometown are idiots and fail to understand that the media are acting in a more irresponsible way than a 13 y/o boy.

[OngBonga]

How do you know it's just a kid until you've forcibly removed the mask?

I think he's been named. By his own Mother, no less.

[rong]

Also, the point isn't that he's wearing a scary mask on public. It's that he's doing it in a family environment (macdonalds, sadly, is a family environment) where lots of young kids will be. Why does some dufus have the right to decide that a random 5 year old is ready to deal with that? If he's wearing it at night clubs nobody is going to be that upset, but how about hanging outside a preschool? Is that OK?

I'm sure I read one dude also had a knife and followed some 11 year old to school. Nor related to my point, just random info.

[OngBonga]

If the point you're making is that you can't know whether he's old enough to slap until you remove the mask, well that's besides the point.

You slap him if he's a threat. That might be a reflex based on him being in your face too quickly, tough luck for him. But if you have enough time to assess whether it's a prank or something more sinister, well that takes reflexes out of the equation, and we should be rational.

[rong]

I already acknowledged slapping was an over statement. But dealing with it isn't.

Your media analogy misses the point that one is dealing with adults and one with little kids.

[Poopadoop]

There's no evidence to suggest he was aggressively approaching people. In this photo, he's hiding from cars. That hardly demonstrates a threat to anyone safety.

It's an open question what he was actually doing then. He could just be sitting behind a sign for hours, he could be hiding there and peeking out at people who come by, or he could be jumping out screaming and waving his dick at them for all we know.

And it makes a difference which of those he was doing if we're going to judge his behavior.

Also, you're right the media are being their usual fuckwad selves in sensationalising the whole thing.

[OngBonga]

I already acknowledged slapping was an over statement. But dealing with it isn't.

Your media analogy misses the point that one is dealing with adults and one with little kids.

Won't somebody think of the children.gif

[OngBonga]

It's an open question what he was actually doing then.

It's clear what he was doing. He was hiding behind the sign to freak people out. To a 13 y/o kid, that is shit funny.

[Poopadoop]

It's clear what he was doing. He was hiding behind the sign to freak people out. To a 13 y/o kid, that is shit funny.

There's no film of him apparently, so we don't know what he was doing exactly. We just know at one moment in time he was hiding behind a sign. There's a whole range of things he could have been doing before and after that moment, some of which are pretty tame, some of which aren't.

[OngBonga]

Ok well there's been no reports of any aggressive behaviour, so I'm taking the picture at face value.

I think the probability is extremely high that he is just having a laugh, that nothing sinister is going on here.

[Savy]

Is it still harmless if it's done to little kids? How about an old lady? Is giving them nightmares or giving her a heart attack ok 'cause it's a 'harmless' prank?

Harmless may be a bad word because clearly in both some harm is done just the first isn't an issue & the second is. The second is also clearly a crime and would be dealt with as such. The first probably falls under a crime too & whilst I don't think it's such an issue I imagine the people dealing with him would do so in much less kind terms if he was targeting children.

The one with children whilst he clearly shouldn't be doing it in the grand scheme of things it doesn't really cause any issues. I'm also not defending the kids right to keep doing it he was clearly being a pain and causing problems he shouldn't & isn't allowed to do but it's a case of someone talking to him saying stop being a Muppet and moving him on. It's unlikely that he was targeting vulnerable groups like mentioned.

The headline should be more along the lines of bored child causes a bit of hassle in pursuit of his own entertainment rather than EVIL CLOWN CHILD MURDER RAPE SCARY!!

[boost]

The world is not your safe space. The world is not your child's safe space. Your child has an ugly face. Your child is a cunt. Fuck off.

[Poopadoop]

Harmless may be a bad word because clearly in both some harm is done just the first isn't an issue & the second is. The second is also clearly a crime and would be dealt with as such. The first probably falls under a crime too & whilst I don't think it's such an issue I imagine the people dealing with him would do so in much less kind terms if he was targeting children.

The one with children whilst he clearly shouldn't be doing it in the grand scheme of things it doesn't really cause any issues. I'm also not defending the kids right to keep doing it he was clearly being a pain and causing problems he shouldn't & isn't allowed to do but it's a case of someone talking to him saying stop being a Muppet and moving him on. It's unlikely that he was targeting vulnerable groups like mentioned.

Sounds about right.

[rong]

The world is not your safe space. The world is not your child's safe space. Your child has an ugly face. Your child is a cunt. Fuck off.

Actually, we live in England. England is a safe place for children. We make great effort to ensure this is the case. Kids can walk down streets, accompanied by an adult, without fear of being terrified by random shit. We're very civilized over here.

[a500lbgorilla]

[JKDS]

Lots of jurisdictions have laws regarding mask wearing.

Just an fyi.

[JKDS]

Also, some jurisdictions have very loose terrorism statutes. Sometimes, as vague as "intending to cause terror".

I'm surprised none of you think this is unacceptable behaviour though

[Savy]

Also, some jurisdictions have very loose terrorism statutes. Sometimes, as vague as "intending to cause terror".

I'm surprised none of you think this is unacceptable behaviour though

I'm under the impression most of us do think it's unacceptable behaviour.

[OngBonga]

I think it's unacceptable when it's aggressive. The act of wearing a clown mask in public, that alone I have no problem with.

[boost]

Also, some jurisdictions have very loose terrorism statutes. Sometimes, as vague as "intending to cause terror".

I'm surprised none of you think this is unacceptable behaviour though

I'm with ImSavy. I thought everyone thinks this is unwanted behavior. The dispute is two-fold: What's to be done about it, and where exactly can the line of "acceptable/unacceptable behavior" be drawn that doesn't set precedence that negatively impacts society?

[boost]

I think it's unacceptable when it's aggressive. The act of wearing a clown mask in public, that alone I have no problem with.

Generally I don't have an issue with it either, however there are very reasonable arguments to be made that you should have the right to see the face (and all that comes with that, including, and probably most significantly, a reliable window into a persons intentions) of those who chose to enter with you into public spaces.

[OngBonga]

Generally I don't have an issue with it either, however there are very reasonable arguments to be made that you should have the right to see the face (and all that comes with that, including, and probably most significantly, a reliable window into a persons intentions) of those who chose to enter with you into public spaces.

This becomes highly contentious when we apply it to Muslim women.

And the "right to see the face" sounds to me as ridiculous a concept as "the right to hide one's face". What if I don't want my face to be seen? Maybe I'm really fucking ugly and feel more confident with a mask on.

[boost]

This becomes highly contentious when we apply it to Muslim women.

And the "right to see the face" sounds to me as ridiculous a concept as "the right to hide one's face". What if I don't want my face to be seen? Maybe I'm really fucking ugly and feel more confident with a mask on.

I think the latter is a good point, the former-- well I think that should we agree everyone has a right to see your face in public (again, if we were to agree) then I don't think something as flimsy as "I believe X" is an excuse to preclude yourself from what applies to the rest of us.

Obviously this is not quite the same as a public park, but I think it's clear that masked individuals should be barred from common robbery targets, such as banks. And obviously this needs to apply to religious face coverings, else anyone who otherwise would have worn a Richard Nixon mask to rob a bank would just don a burka.

[bigred]

And obviously this needs to apply to religious face coverings, else anyone who otherwise would have worn a Richard Nixon mask to rob a bank would just don a burka.

Boost, what happened to you over the last few years? I remember you typically arguing on the far left.

[rong]

Point break wouldn't have been the same with burka masks.

[bigred]

Point break wouldn't have been the same with burka masks.

Anything would have made the remake better.

[rong]

Haven't seen it, not intending to.

[OngBonga]

...I think it's clear that masked individuals should be barred from common robbery targets, such as banks. And obviously this needs to apply to religious face coverings...

Currently it doesn't. If you walk into a bank in the UK wearing a motorbike helmet, you'll get approached quickly and aggressively by the security guard who will demand you remove it immediately. Walk in wearing a burka and no one will say a word. Well, unless you're obviously a man, then maybe someone will say something. I don't actually think this is a problem, it would be a problem if we started demanding Islamic women show their faces in public when they don't want to.

Fair enough, banks, schools, these kind of places, it's reasonable for the law to say that you can't wear a mask. But if someone does? Well I would say it's only reasonable to remove the peson from the location, not to arrset or demask them (assuming they aren't doing anything else, anyway).

[Savy]

American home security is mental. Just saw an advert for Xfinity that has cameras all over your house where you can watch from any device. Do people not realise how insecure their information is online, mostly due to how poorly people treat the human error side of things. It's essentially allowing people free access to spy into your home.

Walk in wearing a burka and no one will say a word. Well, unless you're obviously a man, then maybe someone will say something. I don't actually think this is a problem, it would be a problem if we started demanding Islamic women show their faces in public when they don't want to.

I don't think that's true btw. I'm pretty sure there is somewhat of a procedure for things like that. Also see France.

Also asking someone to show their face in your building/house/property or whatever is completely different to in public.

[boost]

Boost, what happened to you over the last few years? I remember you typically arguing on the far left.

Are you perturbed by me having left the team, or do you think I'm making lousy points?

That being asked, I've certainly moved center on certain issues, and left on others. I'm interested in an accurate perception of reality, not rooting or fighting for a team.

Now a question about what's happened to your social-political compass: I'd thought of you as the guy who'd cheer for the guy who satirizes religious demands on secular society by winning a judgement that forces the DMV to issue him a license with a photo of him wearing a pasta strainer on his head. What happened?

[boost]

Currently it doesn't. If you walk into a bank in the UK wearing a motorbike helmet, you'll get approached quickly and aggressively by the security guard who will demand you remove it immediately. Walk in wearing a burka and no one will say a word. Well, unless you're obviously a man, then maybe someone will say something. I don't actually think this is a problem, it would be a problem if we started demanding Islamic women show their faces in public when they don't want to.

Fair enough, banks, schools, these kind of places, it's reasonable for the law to say that you can't wear a mask. But if someone does? Well I would say it's only reasonable to remove the peson from the location, not to arrset or demask them (assuming they aren't doing anything else, anyway).

Right, how things currently are in whatever jurisdiction has no bearing on how they should be. I think it is a poor law or a poor enforcement of it if it is written or being enforced in a way that unequally burdens people based on their religious belief or lack thereof. If you can't wear a mask, you can't wear a mask. If your excuse for wearing as mask is prefaced with "due to my religious convictions.." then you're a cunt and you still can't wear the mask.

I think it's a bad idea to allow people to wear masks in certain places, but if we decide there's smoother sailing for us all if we allow masks for the sake of people who wish to wear religious masks, then I think it prudent to allow everyone to wear a mask.

[OngBonga]

I think it's a bad idea to allow people to wear masks in certain places, but if we decide there's smoother sailing for us all if we allow masks for the sake of people who wish to wear religious masks, then I think it prudent to allow everyone to wear a mask.

I'm almost in agreement here. It's just that I don't think it should be a crime to wear masks. It's the same for me as wearing my hood up. I've nearly got banned from Tesco for telling the security guard to take his jacket off when he asked me to take my hood down. Fuck off and mind your own business, I'm just buying some fucking bread!

Ultimately, for me this boils down to the fact that wearing a mask is, in itself, a passive act. I don't think the law has any right to tell people that they cannot act in a passive manner. It is not acceptable for the law to make an assumption about your intent. The law must prove. If you're holding an offensive weapon, well your intent is clearly, at the very least, to cause alarm and distress. That's where it becomes criminal.

I agree that we shouldn't say "it's ok to cover your face for religious reasons but otherwise it's not". It's one or the other. I think we're just on different sides in that regard, while in agreement about the religious nature.

[boost]

Building a bomb is a passive act.

But, my stance on covering ones face in public isn't exactly a strong conviction and it's mostly theoretical. As you correctly point out, the line between mask and not mask is not absolutely clear. Does a hood obscure the face enough to not be allowed? How about a hood and big sun glasses?

This is where things get murky, and you have people making mistakes both ways. One security guard may bug you about your hood while he lets a person in a burka go right on by because he's afraid of being called a bigot, and another security guard may let you go right on by with your hood up because of your (I don't know why I'm assuming) white skin, while he harasses the woman in a hijab because he is bigoted.

But that's the thing with law-- the best ones tend to be theoretical enough to allow interpretations on a case by case bases by the courts. Or at least, while that can be a flaw, it can also be a feature.

[OngBonga]

Building a bomb is a passive act.

No, it's not. Even if somehow you are bulding a bomb without the intent to detonate it, it may still explode during construction, putting other people at risk. And there always exists the risk of accidental detonation.

If you were bulding a bomb in a bomb-proof room, and you are an expert, and you have suitable methods of storing it, safe methods of transport, and a suitable place to detonate it safely, without any criminal intent whatsoever, well maybe then it's passive. Maybe. Good luck ticking all those boxes.

[Poopadoop]

If you're holding an offensive weapon, well your intent is clearly, at the very least, to cause alarm and distress. That's where it becomes criminal.

Apparently not everywhere.

[OngBonga]

Well America is fucking stupid, I'm talking about civilisation.

[Poopadoop]

It's still funny though.

My favourite part is where he says 'this is the safest intersection in Detroit right now, 'cause we're all carrying guns.'

Uh, yeah.