Your Tax Dollars At Work: Cops Busting People For Crop Tops, Twerking
from the on-the-other-hand,-all-real-crime-is-no-longer-a-problem dept
Now that the Supreme Court has given states the freedom to police women’s bodies, it only makes sense that police are out there literally policing women’s bodies.
It’s summer. Temperatures are high pretty much everywhere. And when temps go up, the amount of clothing people are willing to put on goes down. For some reason, that completely expected turn of events resulted in some ridiculous enforcement of law by local law enforcement. (h/t Peter Bonilla)
Casey LaCaze-Lachney of Winnfield, Lousiana went to a festival in town June 11 dressed like this (screenshot via Lachney’s TikTok account):
For that, she was cited for indecent exposure by a Winnfield PD officer:
A Winnfield, LA woman’s TikTok video has gone viral after she took to the app to complain about an indecent exposure citation she received at a festival on Saturday, June 11.
Casey LaCaze-Lachney, known on the app by her username @kazzi112, posted about the incident where it has received more than 2.6 million views. LaCaze-Lachney captioned the video “make it make sense” before showing viewers the outfit in question.
LaCaze-Lachney is shown wearing a black t-shirt that covered her shoulders and was cropped just above the belly button, paired with cutoff denim shorts and a studded belt.
The video went viral but this was no stunt. This actually happened. According to the Winnfield PD’s pathetic, incredibly defensive Facebook post, an officer actually believed this totally normal summer outfit violated the law:
Winnfield’s 6th Annual Dugdemona Festival held on Main Street was an amazing success. However, recent posts to social media have had a negative impact on the service of our police officers during this family fun-filled festival.
An unnamed citizen was cited for a city ordinance and has since taken to a popular social media site, blasting police officers. However, 3 female officers responded to various complaints about the person’s attire and the person of interest was issued a citation under the city ordinance.
Um, the only thing having a “negative impact on the service” of the PD’s officers is the service of the PD’s officers. If “various complaints” are made about someone who isn’t breaking the law, the officers (female or not) should ignore those complaints and concern themselves with actual lawbreaking.
But that didn’t happen. Instead, a citation was issued for violating city ordinance 14-76. This ordinance is quoted by the PD in its “stop being mad at us for being assholes” post. Here it is. See if you can’t spot the lawbreaking!
“It shall be unlawful for any person to wear pants, trousers, shorts, skirts, dresses, or skorts in any public place or places open to the public which either intentionally exposes undergarments or intentionally exposes any portion of the pubic hair, cleft of buttocks, or genitals.” Fines range from $25.00 for a first offense to a maximum of $300, and the person may be ordered to perform up to 40 hours of community service.
Even if the shorts/crop top managed to inadvertently expose, say, the “cleft of the buttocks” (perhaps when bending over), it would not be an intentional exposure. And I have no idea how this law applies to swimming pools, where the clothing worn is indistinguishable from “undergarments” in many cases.
To conclude this stupidity, the PD offered this statement, which says the PD will not lower itself to engaging with irate citizens for lowering the department to its current level by citing a person for wearing clothes.
“We, as public servants, will not engage in a social media war with any one or any organization, as it is improper and brings discredit upon this department. We also cannot comment on details of any case under investigation or pending court action.”
It’s a bit late for most of this. The department has already done the “improper” and succeeded in “bringing discredit” on itself. It was a stupid, unlawful move by local law enforcement. And it’s definitely going to end in some court action.
Speaking of court action, here’s our second bit of literal policing of women’s bodies. This one occurred quite a bit earlier than the Winnfield debacle, but is back in the news because the victim of body policing is getting a payout from the city of Portland over the actions of some similarly stupid officers.
I’m going to dole out this lead sentence in chunks for maximum impact:
The city will pay $75,000 to settle a federal lawsuit filed by a woman arrested by Portland police in 2019 after she was seen twerking in a bike lane downtown…
I’m not sure what part of this is more laughable: that officers believed twerking was a crime or that doing it in a bike lane was the part that triggered enforcement. Either way, it gets stupider:
…and had flipped off officers during a protest.
Definitely not a crime. In fact, it’s the opposite: it’s constitutionally protected expression. It really doesn’t matter where it happens (bike lane) or what expression (twerking) accompanies it. The precedent in this judicial circuit dates all the way back to 1990. So, Portland police officers have been on notice for more than three decades that flipping off cops cannot justify an arrest.
The cops had an excuse though:
Portland police Cmdr. Erica Hurley defended the arrest at the hearing, saying officers had probable cause to arrest the woman who wasn’t allowing traffic to move through. Police cars need to get through traffic just like any other cars, she said.
Well, that’s one way to look at it. Another way to look at it is that the momentary twerking did not actually block traffic and that maybe cops shouldn’t be driving their cars in bike lanes. And yet another way of looking at it is that no criminal act ever occurred. That’s the way the jury saw it when it handled her misdemeanor charge, returning a verdict of “not guilty.”
This is obviously just a very small, very specific sampling of police misconduct. But it’s particularly stupid misconduct that, nonetheless, received full-blown support from the agencies employing these officers. That’s why it’s a problem. It indicates no petty amount of bullshit is beneath being defended.
Comments on “Your Tax Dollars At Work: Cops Busting People For Crop Tops, Twerking”
Unfortunately, as it is said “You can beat the rap, but you can’t beat the ride.” She remains innocent but she now has been brought in front of a judge and jury and has a criminal record.
If anything, this is just one of many, many reasons why we should ban the box.
Re: what's more…
She probably actually had to pay a lawyer to defend her in that humiliating ordeal. Not to mention all the extra bullshit BIPoC people go through.
Sorry, I’m extra angry today.
Re: Re: Small correction
Since she was found not guilty, she can’t have a criminal record. She may or may not have an arrest record, as many jurisdictions require such records expunged if the suspect is found not guilty, but not all. It should be all, IMHO, but there you go. That being said, it was a dick move by the cops, as they knew she didn’t violate any criminal statutes.
Re: Re: Re:
A) if it’s not expunged, it’s absolutely part of your ‘criminal record’. Arrests are considered a part of that record which is why they come up in background checks at all.
B)Normal background checks can often find the arrest, but not the expungement due to sloth in updating the databases.
C) Expungement is only a remedy if it can’t come back to affect you. However, expunged arrests can be used to establish a pattern of behavior and affect sentencing if the woman is arrested again for a similar offense and da/judge don’t have cooler heads.
D) worst is the DOJ background check. This live scan fingerprint background check is neccisary for many positions of responsibility. Including tax preperation, working with children or the elderly, high end corporate positions and jobs where you are licensed by the state. A doj background check reveals expunged arrest records, and can place in jeopardy state licensing granted at the behest of whomever is reviewing your application. An expungement only protects your criminal record to a point.
Re: Re: Re:
“they knew she didn’t violate any criminal statutes”
But she allegedly offended a Karen who kept bothering them so they ticketed her to appease Karen.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
Don’t forget the Ken’s who try to please the Karen’s–or the Kizzie’s, Keren’s, and Katriel’s who urge this shit along via their komplacency and komplicity.
Re: Re: Re:3
Oh, fuck off, troll. We don’t want you shitting up this thread too.
Re: Re: Re:4
Riiiiiight. Please, AC, post another one sentence diminutive laden quip. please, please, please.
Re: Re: Re:
Since she was found not guilty, she can’t have a criminal record. She may or may not have an arrest record…
An arrest record is part of a criminal record, and in the UK, would be disclosed as part of a DBS check.
Re:
Wawawawawa, poor white woman! Seriously, show me one example of when you stuck up for males who have had such a rap-ride experience? Or are you just old enough to the point where an image of a possibly do-abble female excites you to commentary about justice?
re:
One of her = at least 10,000 males across the US every year, busted for taking an after-bar piss, and getting a sex charge for it.
Aaaah, the good old days, when the left spoke up for human rights, and equality, not just the rights of tatted up cheap whores in Louisiana, to show like, 1/10th of a labia, and who represent the worst of gendered legal narratives, by-proxy.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
How is a genetically-distinct and unique human being “just part of a woman’s body”? I suggest you brush up on your embryology as well as basic logic. Proximity doesn’t necessarily equate to being part of something. Sitting in your car doesn’t make you a part of it.
The very fact that a mother and unborn child can each live/die independently of each other proves the child is NOT part of the woman’s body. He/she just resides there until he/she is ready to be born. Are you so afraid of admitting here that one of your beliefs could be wrong that you’ll continue to support a brutal and lethal practice just to avoid doing so?
Watch an actual abortion with all its dismemberment, speak with those who’ve gone through it (who the industry does absolutely nothing to support, by the way), and then you’ll have a better idea of what’s really going on. And talk to/read about all the doctors & nurses who continue to leave the industry in droves.
How over 3/4 of women (78%) who see an ultrasound of their baby choose not to have an abortion, how nurses have completely switched their positions after seeing unborn babies being aborted while doctors were trying to save premature ones the very same age right down the hall, and more.
You like to think you’re rational, but the abortion industry has you fooled. They’re all about convincing people like you to support the practice because more abortions means more money. And that’s what they’re really after. Considering that only 30% of people in Minnesota, for example, have been shown to support abortion, they don’t want control of laws about it going back to the people. Because they fear that the people would rightly decide against the practice.
Any attempt to brush off what I’ve said, dismiss it, or argue with it only shows that you or whoever does so is too gullible and arrogant to admit to possibly being wrong and cares only about saving face. I hope that’s not you, that you’ll be open-minded enough to consider the possibility.
Abortion, observed Mother Teresa, has “pitted mothers against their children” and “sown violence and discord at the heart of the most intimate human relationships. It has portrayed the greatest of gifts—a child—as a competitor, an intrusion, and an inconvenience.”
I don’t know about you, but I find basic embryology as well as the words of one of the most renowned humanitarians to ever live stronger and more convincing than whatever profit-driven arguments the abortion industry puts out.
Are you really going to dehumanize human beings who can’t yet express themselves and elevate “choice” over the rights of the vulnerable? We don’t get to choose that other human beings don’t matter. They matter whether we like it or not, and that includes the unborn.
https://www.epm.org/resources/2010/Mar/29/unborn-part-mothers-body/
https://www.lifenews.com/2013/02/07/78-of-pregnant-women-seeing-an-ultrasound-reject-abortions/
https://www.mccl.org/post/how-a-shallow-view-of-the-self-underlies-arguments-for-abortion
Re:
“Any attempt to brush off what I’ve said, dismiss it, or argue with it only shows that you or whoever does so is too gullible and arrogant to admit to possibly being wrong and cares only about saving face. I hope that’s not you, that you’ll be open-minded enough to consider the possibility.”
ok. I’ll content myself with flagging the post and asking you to kindly fuck off.
Re: Re:
I am mighty fagful of you, thanks, Amber!
Re: I have One Simple Question for you.
When does the pregnancy remove the personhood of the carrier?
Re: Re:
That AC probably considers life to start once the sperm enters the egg.
Re: Re: Re:
“Life starts” is hogwash anyway since sperm certainly are not dead matter.
Conception determines the initial genetic composition of what may at one time turn into zero to several individuals.
It’s sort of like “a number lottery starts once you filled in all numbers on your ticket”. There are some superstitions surrounding filled-in tickets but the lottery organizer will tell you in no uncertain terms that the lottery starts when you went through the whole process of submitting your ticket and paying for it.
And the ones required to pay for it get to decide whether to junk the ticket.
Re: Re: Re:
Depending on your definition of life, life already existed as the sperm and egg are alive and all that happens is a modification based on newly compiled code.
The fact that there is “life” is a distraction. Sure there is life.
Leeches are alive. Tumours are alive. Cancer cells are alive.
But should a woman be forced to host a parasitic form that grows continually? Starves her of nutrients? Devours her resources?
Yes? Where are Republicans in save the ring worm. Save the cancer. Save typhoid?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
A baby is only a parasite to be discarded on a whim?
What kind of shit stain are you?
Re: Re: Re:3
Not an archaic brain-dead one like you.
You have no right to force a woman to suffer for 9mon for your antiquated non-scientific beliefs.
Why don’t you ask your priest or pastor why they don’t offer to pay 100% of a birthing cost? For anyone willing to take the offer?
Quite a few grey-line cases would likely carrY to term and offer for adoption if pre and post natal costs were covered.
Come back when you have an answer from them!
Re: Re: Re:3
We have this thing called body autonomy buried deep in traditional American values.
The idea is, that no one can be compelled to surrender that autonomy, for any reason. It doesn’t matter if your blood is the only possible donor match to someone who will die without it, you cannot be compelled to donate blood.
Even dead bodies can’t be compelled to surrender their autonomy – the President of the United States could be on the brink of death without a heart transplant, and a dead body in a morgue cannot be cut open to extract that lifesaving organ unless the previously-a-person had signed an organ donor card.
So the idea that a woman can be compelled to carry a fetus and give birth to it is nonsense. If it were constitutional to compel that, it would be equally constitutional for someone to invent a surgical method to permit male pregnancies, and get a law passed requiring pro-lifers to carry babies to term.
After all, if pregnancy created an exemption to body autonomy, the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment would apply it to any sex capable of being pregnant – ad existing medical technology isn’t far from being able to do exactly that to men.
Re: Re: Re:4
So the idea that a [person with a uterus] can be compelled to carry a fetus and give birth to it is nonsense. If it were constitutional to compel that, it would be equally constitutional for someone to invent a surgical method to permit [cis] male pregnancies, and get a law passed requiring pro-lifers to carry babies to term even in the case of ectopic pregnancies.
Fixed.
Re: Re: Re:3
[Projects facts contrary to evidence]
Re: Re: Re:3
Well–in your case, **a stain is an accurate description. Shit is a tertiary descriptor.
Re: Re: Re:4
Strong in this one the projection is. Hrmmm.
Re: Re: Re:5
Stupid, actually, you shtick.
Re: Re: Re:2
Save STD’s for that matter–after all, STD’s are in fact “life” by any and every definition.
Re: Re: Re:3
What part of “fuck off” are you too stupid to get?
Re: Re: Re:4
What part of “aren’t you killing yourself” within nine minutes of this comment don’t you get?
Re: Re: Re:
o_O
Re: Re: Re:2
LOL. I didn’t mean you. I have nothing but good things to say about you. I meant the Anonymous Coward to whom Stephen T. Stone was replying. Sorry for the confusion!
Re: Re: Re:3
giggles it was a needed moment of levity in this hellscape of a timeline.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3
Stop wasting apologies on AC’s and their allied troll, Stone. You might as well shart into the wind, and hope flowers grow-they cannot, as these trolls are unified in anti-logical purposes.
Re: Re: Re:4
How is Stephen T. Stone a “troll” when he has two articles on TechDirt published? Doesn’t sound like a troll but a welcome member of the community.
Re: Re: Re:5
Doesn’t sound like a troll, but a welcome member of the community.
Unlike the infamous Wikipedia troll, DBA Phillip Cross.
Re: Re: Re:6 With all due respect to the writers of Batman: The Animated Series…
If he’s so infamous, why isn’t he rich?
Re: Re: Re:7
Because infamous =/= famous, and it certainly doesn’t necessarily equal creating anything people think worth buying and/or being a politician.
Re: Re: Re:7
No, grasshopper, just wait–the seeds you have sown here will bloom in their own time.
Protip–NEVER use your real name when YOU are THE asshole.
You do not have to take MY word for it–time itself will tell–you are “on the radar,” now, much uncomfortable sure to follow.
But thanks for playing! YOU win! Most funny, most insightful, indeed.
Re: Re: Re:6
Right, and all of those “welcome”derailments by AC sperg posters like you. Riiiiiiight. A real “democracy” here, for CERTAIN.
Re: Re: Re:5
Out of a preponderance of respect for TD, and an unwillingness to address my own opinion about Stone over the last half decade, I abstain from comment at THIS point.
Time will accrue, and so will my resistance to what he has done here, to me personally.
That said–
Good for fucking G-ds sake, do I have to sit kaddish on why what he did deserves what I will do to it in the next two decades? I don’t think so, but welcome to the netherlands, LOL.
“Everything is not as it seems” once we allow bullies to be bullies, regardless of their race, class or creed.
He is that.
This selective choosing of martyrs and Jesuses is so “Post-Flavian.” It has no place in what we are doing in the rest of the world right now, though useful idiots CAN and DO apply.
Re: Re: Re:4
[Projects facts contrary to any and all evidence]
Re: Re: Re:4
o_O
Did momma not hug you as a baby?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:5
Momma was a women’s libber long before that was fashionable.Whipped her boobies out in public to feed the kids.
But Generation Internet is the generation that flagged our voices offline, cuz’ “feelz” and here we are–no more Roe.
Gen-Inet too stupid to to see real warriors from fake “women’s empowerment” KKK types.
Re: Re: Re:6
Momma was a women’s libber long before that was fashionable.Whipped her boobies out in public to feed the kids.
[Asserts facts not in evidence]
Re: Re: Re:6
OMG. look at how spergs view mothers–and haste, despise, and flag motherhood! Unimaginable, twenty years ago, though these types are proving Bettleheim correct in every way.
Woman with bare breast in public = Enemy of the Sperg Republic
Re: Re: Re:5
Based on his posts, she used her bouncing baby boy to practice her basketball dribble.
Re: Re: Re:6
Lol. Child abuse imagery so welcome here.
Her generation was actually the first one torn by the discipline/not discipline narratives of early MKULTRation-via-pop-psychology.
Which was your generation too, so, thanks for the Freudian infused tell-all and your personal angst. This thread has become such a pulp magazine now.
Re: Re: Re:4
Ha ha! Oh, boy, Pluto! This moron’s projecting so far I can see his psyche on Jupiter!
Re: Re:
June 24, 2022
Re: Re:
Once the pregnancy reaches the point that emergency contraception will have no effect, of course. /s
Re: Re:
Since zygotes are equally as alive as what they contribute to, human life begins the moment the carrying parent decides they want a baby. 🙂
Re: Re:
Well, you mom was an it, COUNTED BY STATE DOLLARS-APPLIED-TO -HER-AND PROGENY (YOU.) She put herself, and then, “by proxy” put you into such an accounting system.
Having a father that you could have discussed things with, cajoled, derided, or otherwise argued about life with might have made a difference in your understanding, though I doubt you were, are, or ever could be sentient to the point of understanding that. Your work here demonstrates it 100%.
That said, and to answer your question, “when does the pregnancy remove the personhood of the carrier?”–the answer comes this way:
After some useless female decides to shit out a bag of bones named “YOU” hypothetically, she has ALREADY remived the choices, and options of the man whose sperm she soaked into her inner vagina.
Having done such, she has exposed such a male to the whims and peculiarities of the American two-tieed justice system.
While we can forgive these breed cows of anti-abortion and pro-state-check garnering, we cannot forget them, for how fucking short sighted and absent as people they were to do such heinous things–considering that, they could have merely dumped that lump of pre-flesh into a toilet, and none-the-wiser, and allowed men to go free from second tier slavery.
Yet here you are, after the fact. Gibberish, bullying, stating that you deserve a place, via anger, and bullying. “Yeah, but who can answer these tough questions?????”
Kid, I don’t know, but you can’t, that’s a given, considering YOUR condition, that I described accurately above.
Re:
It’s you who are afraid to recognize the simple fact that life is cheap. Until you remedy that situation, aka change what is considered the “human condition”, all you are doing is prolonging misery and death for everyone else which is so typical of people like you – ie fanatics who happily will let other people and children die horribly for their belief. You are a blight on society.
Re: Re:
It’s you who are afraid to recognize the simple fact that life is cheap.
No, no, no. You’re missing the point. Life is cheap only after birth. Before that point, it’s more precious than all the money in China and the IMF put together. The Republicans and Conservatives both say so, and since they’re the majority of the SCOTUS, who are we to doubt them? /s
Re:
Any attempt to brush off what I’ve said, dismiss it, or argue with it only shows that you or whoever does so is too gullible and arrogant to admit to possibly being wrong and cares only about saving face. I hope that’s not you, that you’ll be open-minded enough to consider the possibility.
And since this isn’t the first time that we’ve seen this asinine bullshit of yours, I’m assuming that the irony of this whole fucking word salad is lost on your stupid fucking ass.
Seriously, asshole…you and the other equally challenged ‘religious’ people are going to be surprised as all fuck when you find out that tots and pears do absolutely fucking nothing to contribute to the costs of turning women into brood mares for your fucked up god shit.
Better get ready to divert some of your tithe to pay for all of your self-righteous bullshit. Because despite what you may think personally, I’ve never seen your god chip in a dime when it comes to charity.
Re:
Are you really going to dehumanize human beings who can’t yet express themselves and elevate “choice” over the rights of the vulnerable?
Yep – churches don’t pay taxes. You contribute absolutely nothing, you freeloading bastards.
Maybe it’s time that churches start paying for the stuff they want. Then we can see what your faith is really made of.
Re:
Any attempt to brush off what I’ve said, dismiss it, or argue with it only shows that you or whoever does so is too gullible and arrogant to admit to possibly being wrong and cares only about saving face.
If what you’re saying cannot survive scrutiny, it must be a pretty weak argument.
But you already know that. It’s the cornerstone of your “faith.”
Re: Re:
AC! How many times do I have to tell you about getting into arguments with the Westboro Baptist Church?
Re:
“Are you really going to dehumanize human beings who can’t yet express themselves and elevate “choice” over the rights of the vulnerable?” – the definitions of human beings can be quite different depending on who you ask and that’s why we go with science and it takes quite a few gestational weeks before there’s even a functional central nervous system in that mass of amorphous cells you call “human being”. So just shut up and just don’t use the right to abort yourself.
Re:
That only applies to a late stage of pregnancy, before that the child can die independent of the mother, but cannot live outside the mother, or after the mother dies.
Re: Re:
Part of the unspoken deal here is that somehow every abortion takes place in a fantasy land where the mother is like 12 hours from going into labor, and not due to a day-after pill or an evacuation a couple weeks later. Even though we like to focus also on when 2 heart cells start doing their thing, the imagery is all copies of some later-term emergency abortion from the 70s.
Of course, we do our damnedest here in fantasyland to make sure medical services are impossible to obtain for as long as possible, or not at all.
Re:
Shhh honey, the adults are talking.
Re:
Before I begin, lets discuss the sorities paradox. We hopefully both agree a single grain of sand is not a heap of sand. As I add one grain of sand at a time, when does it become a heap? The definition of heap is vague enough that we can’t draw a bright line, but we can clearly distinguish one grain of sand from a heap of sand.
Now lets consider your question. When is a collection of cells that will grow to be a human become a distinct being? Here you focus on the science. So lets look at the science.
In the first 4-ish weeks of pregnancy, an embryo is indistinguishable from its mother. We can not detect its presence, and even if we could, it would be indistinguishable from a polyp or tumor in the uterus. At this point, for all intents and purposes that ball of cells is part of the mother. The question then becomes, when do those cells become a seperate entity? What indeed is a human being?
Just this morning I discovered that ~1350 times a year that clump of cells will never grow a brain, and if it survives until term will not survive outside the womb. The term is ‘incompatible with life’. Are these embryos, whose future is to lack any capacity for thought, consciousness, or sentience, human beings at all? If they are born, must the state preserve that life at all costs? If they are human at the moment of conception, the state must right? Or did the fetus stop being human at some point?
Science has landed on the answer that it can not determine when a human life begins, because the question of what is human life is not all that clear. Some biologists/doctors hold to a moral belief and say the only reasonable choice is at conception. There are however two other major answers. One is at birth. Once the fetus is free of the mother’s life support, it becomes its own individual. This provides a clean line as conception does, but without the messy and complicated questions about what happens if the essential elements of life don’t develop. Others will say viability is a reasonable middle ground. Viability provides a similar standard to birth, that is once the child can survive outside the mothers womb it is endowed with the right to a live birth, removing abortion as an option in favor of surgical birth. Indeed, I expected a slower roll-back of Roe from Dobbs, pushing the Casey guidance on viability back based on long shot victories of keeping a pre-mature child alive rather than a full on repeal.
Simply put, In creatures that use live birth, while we can easily distinguish the baby from the embryo or fetus, there is a difficulty in finding the clear line between. Taxonomy is difficult, and the question of what makes a human a distinct life is not as clear as you make it.
Re: Re:
Simply put, in creatures that use live birth, while we can easily distinguish the baby from the blastocyst or embryo, there is a difficulty in finding the clear line between.
FTFY. 🙂
Re: Re:
In the first 4-ish weeks of pregnancy, what is occupying the uterus is a blastocyst, not an embryo. It is then an embryo until around the 12th week, when it becomes a fetus.
Re: You have any refrences that arent Right Wing Nut Job tainted bro?
https://www.epm.org/resources/2010/Mar/29/unborn-part-mothers-body/
https://www.lifenews.com/2013/02/07/78-of-pregnant-women-seeing-an-ultrasound-reject-abortions/
https://www.mccl.org/post/how-a-shallow-view-of-the-self-underlies-arguments-for-abortion
Yeah not gonna expose my browser to that filth
Re: Re:
Could some argument under obscenity law not be made about those links?
Re: Re:
We made them look at an ultrasound & that changed their mind.
I move that we co-opt this plan and force members of Congress to look at morgue photos after every mass shooting.
Re: Re: Re:
As insightful as that is. If you want to do something about actual gun violence and not just the rare rifle in a nutter’s hands report.
More people die by hand guns in a month than mass shootings over a year.
Re: Re: Re:2
And the majority of those deaths?
SUICIDE.
And not by cop.
Re: Re: Re:2
I just want to know for a fact that they are benefiting from the same horrific toll the rest of us are.
There is a problem with guns, mass shootings just get all of the attention, but considering the jackass candidate who responded to the July 4 mass shooting…
“Let’s pray for justice to prevail, and then move on and let’s celebrate the independence of this nation,”
Lets move on.
Baby became an orphan, but lets move on.
I’ve dealt with people who were homophobic who then got to know me & they figure out I am not this evil thing they were told. Exposure to actual things makes change happen.
Perhaps having to look at morgue shots of vets who committed suicide would make them REAL to them & they might do something to provide the care they promised those vets.
Re: Re: Re:3 Reality sucks
We have a serious gun violence problem in this country.
Nobody with a brain can honestly say otherwise.
But the problem is not long barrel rifles that are manually triggered with no ability for sustained fire. That happen to eject a spent cartridge on their own.
(They are not automatic).
Rifles shootings make headlines because they’re used from a distance and tend to have multiple casualties.
They are also much less common. News needs the mass shooting numbers to sell continuous coverage.
Where are the TV preemptions for the 17 people killed in the last 24 hours by hand guns. In a single city.
Why aren’t mayors and governors out there holding daily press conferences reading off the 40 people shot yesterday in 35 hand gun incidents
(the numbers are fabricated but not out of the ordinary).
People need to stop listening to the talking heads and start reading actual reports. Not paper copy.
Rifles are a Democrat scape goat.
One that says ‘look at me I’m doing something’ that would have no difference statistically on the number of violent crime and death toll of gun violence.
Well politicians run around screaming about AR15s and AK47s they ignore the facts.
Want to stop gun crime? Do something about all the in-reality sub-machine-guns that are just barely legal. The flashy German auto-pistols. The p90 variants.
The PDW, personal defence weapon. I say this as a FAN of the p90 for small game hunting. But I’m no idiot, nor hypocrite. A $50 set of pins and springs can turn most PDWs into full fledged, legitimate, assault weapons.
And that’s what’s being used to case mayhem across the country.
Because here the actual fact. Racism at its finest in mainstream Democrat controlled media, and right wing copy alike.
They don’t care about the half dozen robberies committed by black men against black owned businesses. They don’t care about the gang shootings. The botched drug deals. They don’t care.
Shoot a bunch of middle class white people and it’s non-stop air for days.
Wake UP!
Re: Re: Re:
We made them look at an ultrasound & that changed their mind.
The worst thing is that it won’t have been their own sonogram because at the stage of pregnancy most terminations are carried out, there’s nothing that can be seen on the screen.
Re: You should apologise and clean up after yourslef
“Any attempt to brush off what I’ve said, dismiss it, or argue with it only shows that you or whoever does so is too gullible and arrogant to admit to possibly being wrong and cares only about saving face. I hope that’s not you, that you’ll be open-minded enough to consider the possibility.”
We considered it.
And you’re still wrong.
And if your horseshit can’t stand up to scrutiny, stop peddling horseshit or stop complaining when people call it what it is.
Re:
But how is this related to…
THE FUCKING ARTICLE?
Re:
Easy, for the entire time it’s just a bunch of cells.
Re:
… said nobody mentally and morally competent, ever.
The jeans were distressed, which exposes the skin underneath (albeit barely), including her “buttocks” as the law cites.
Re:
Except that’s not what the law cites. The relevant part of the Louisiana law regulating indecent exposure specifically says:
C. Any person subject to this code who intentionally exposes, in an indecent manner, the genitalia, anus, buttocks, or female areola or nipple is guilty of indecent exposure and shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
D. In this code, for purposes of this Section, unless the context otherwise requires, the following terms shall have the following meanings ascribed herein:
[…]
(4) “Indecent manner” means conduct that amounts to a form of immorality relating to sexual impurity which is grossly vulgar, obscene, and repugnant to common propriety, and tends to excite sexual desire or deprave morals with respect to sexual relations.
(5) “Private area” means the naked or underwear-clad genitalia, anus, buttocks, or female areola or nipple.
Since Daisy Dukes do not fit the definition of ‘underwear’ in any part of the world, then Casey LaCaze-Lachney’s actions when she was arrested do not fit the definition of ‘indecent exposure’ in the relevant statute as cited. Care to try again, over-reaching cop apologist?
Re: Re:
Read it again?
Paragraph C doesn’t mention “Private area” therein defined under paragraph D(5). It is, however, mentioned under prior paragraphs, such as A(2).
I’m saying the shorts, with holes in them, expose more than typical shorts without holes would.
Note, I don’t agree with the officers assessment, but I’m sure that’s the legal line they could tow if they wanted to, among others.
Re: Re: Re:
Read again: C. Any person subject to this code who intentionally exposes…
You were saying?
Re: Re: Re:
I’m saying the shorts, with holes in them, expose more than typical shorts without holes would.
You wouldn’t be able to get shorts without holes on, typical or otherwise.
USA: turning more and more, quicker and quicker into a police-like state but run by those who think the public have/should have no rights whatsoever! as for ‘The Constitution, what the hell is that? thanks to many courts and judges, that has become almost non-existent too. too many Nazis brought here after the war, given permanent high level positions and super salaries which their family members have taken over as they’ve grown up, but no one saw, expected or dreamed about them taking the country control they have now!
Re:
The Nazis aren’t responsible for what’s going on right now. White supremacy and Christian theocracy are. Those were things in this country both before and after World War II.
The GOP voting base is largely white and conservative. Members of the party have been linked to white supremacist groups in one way or another. Conservative media turns viewers/readers into conspiracy-minded paranoiacs. And the (also largely white) Religious Right has become more extremist in its attempts to shoehorn their religious beliefs into the law. The racism, eugenicism, and genocidal thinking of a vast number of American conservatives isn’t a product of the Nazis—it’s a product of American racism passed down through the generations.
Adolf Hitler didn’t radicalize the Proud Boys. Tucker Carlson did.
Re: Re: I always confuse those two
Which was the one with the mustache?
Re: Re: Re:
Tucker can’t grow one, which is why he is tanning his balls.
Re: Re: Re:2
Are you sure they are tanned? Seems to me the color could have rubbed off from a certain someone who swallows anything Tucker put forth.
Re: Re: Re:3
Seems to me the color could have rubbed off from a certain someone who swallows anything Tucker spews.
FTFY. 😉
Re: Re: Re:2
I’m gonna need you to never mention Tucker Carlson’s balls ever again. 🙃
Re: Re: Re:3
Be glad I didn’t link to the commercial for his manly men doing manly things that played a lot like 1980’s skinamax gay porn
Re: Re: Re:2 Explains it.
Well, I had been wondering about the facial contortions and the squealing.
Re: Re:
Never forget their ability to be completely against something & then decide it is no longer a problem as long as it benefits them.
I remember years of ‘Sharia Law will be forced on us’ screaming, and I noted they were just worried someone would beat them to doing it first.
No one has managed to give an answer to why abortion is banned that doesn’t involve their morals, or their beliefs.
But then they also have problems with all the religious crap about helping the sick & poor, & welcoming the stranger.
Re: Re:
Christians to the lions!
Re: Re: Re:
Do wild animals not have enough problems already??
How the fsck are we supposed to get them on Crestor after eating all that fat??
Re: Re: Re:
Again, the Romans would like to remind everyone that this rarely happened AND that the early Christians were more likely harassing Roman officials to throw them to the lions instead.
Re: Re: Re:2
Well if they hadn’t fscked it all up, we wouldn’t be having this problem today…
we’d have another group of batshit imaginary skyfreind loving freaks trying to convert the world.
Re: Re: Re:3
TAC, the sun’s not imaginary. Af least, I hope it’s not.
Re: Re: Re:4
Of course it isn’t. Everyone knows the sun is a mass of incandescent gas—a giant nuclear furnace.
Re: Re: Re:5 Actually…
The sun is a miasma of incandescent plasma.
Re: Re: Re:6
I respect you for getting the reference and appreciate your sharing that link. 😃
Re: Re: Re:7
Even a broken clock is right to be broken, lol.
Re:
If you dig a bit deeper you will discover to your dismay that a majority of the ideas and practices by that group found their birth right here in the good ole USA.
Internment camps, ghettos, sterilization of the subhumans, eugenics, classism, racism
.. uh boy, you guys had nothing on apartheid.
Regardless of what position they hold, if someone puts a statement like that as part of their position, they’re the one being arrogant.
Quite the loophole in that ordinance...
Uh, this rule does not prohibit just going in the nude. Namely not wearing any piece of clothing at all that could expose whatever.
Re:
True, and likely to be overturned on appeal, but I suspect the initial court would judge that argument as “too clever by half”.
Re:
Hey! Damn right. Nude fest is on!
For that, [Casey LaCaze-Lachney] was cited for indecent exposure by a Winnfield PD officer.
If LaCaze-Lachney committed indecent exposure, then where’s the photograph of her without her Daisy Dukes on? Are the police being lazy about gathering evidence, or is this just another revenue-gathering exercise like speed cameras on motorways?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Laws
Start with the second because it’s easy.
Something I’ve screamed about for every which protest. If you want to block people, get a permit. You do not otherwise have the right to block the process of daily law abiding life.
Do not block the street, the bike lane, do not congratulate on sidewalks that state no loitering.
If you break the law you suffer the consequences
Re:
…do not congratulate on sidewalks that state no loitering.
Dude, turn off the auto-“correct”. Please.
Re: Re:
Congregate*
Are you really going to dehumanize human beings who can’t yet express themselves and elevate “choice” over the rights of the vulnerable?
Are you going to dehumanize human beings based on their internal organs and elevate “life” over the rights of vulnerable rape survivors? Fuck off with that shit.
Obviously Masnick does not think of the children ™ and the poor hard working cops (tm²) having to risk their lives and deal with the criminally criminal twerk exhibited by the indecent lady. It’s the end of morals and customs of old!
/derp
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Facepalm
Seriously stupid. I absolutely hate the idea that we still require “modesty” in todays “enlightened” society.
If you can’t look a a naked person and enjoy the art of it, …
Like any store: look don’t touch.
Are we really south an animalistic society we can’t have a bit of crack and crevice?
What is wrong with these people!??!
Re:
What is wrong with these people!??!
They view nudity and porn as the same thing.
Re: Re:
They consider nudity and porn as the same thing. Viewing nudity is not necessary for recreation. You don’t need light to figure out where the holes in the sackcloth are.
Re: Re:
What’s wrong with either one?
Re: Re: Re:
Nothing.
The problem is the people.
Re: Re:
So they consider a newborn child as a focus of CSAM? 😣
Re: Re: Re:
Probably.
https://www.denverpost.com/2018/01/24/arizona-bath-time-photos-child-protective-services/
https://jonathanturley.org/2009/08/17/texas-officials-arrest-parents-and-take-away-their-children-for-taking-pictures-of-their-children-in-a-bathtub-and-breastfeeding/
Re: Re: Re:2
Uh oh, better not show them the cover art to Nirvana’s Nevermind album!
Re: Re: Re:3
IIRC, you can’t see the kid’s genitalia in that picture, so it should be safe.
Re: Re: Re:4
Clear as day in the uncensored cover.
Big deal at the time where I was because almost stores carried it as is. Some put it in a slip cover. And a few refused to stock it.
Most editions with a censored cover also have waif me in the track list.
Re: Re: Re:4
The original unedited album cover does show the kid’s genitals. I assume that was edited out in future pressings/for stores like Walmart.
Re: Re: Re:5
Not only that, but I checked out the album art on TIDAL, and I can see his doodle. Same as on a CD I have. So it’s definitely visible.
Re: Re: Re:6
https://www.discogs.com/master/13814-Nirvana-Nevermind
Re: Re: Re:5
And in the UK. I just searched the album now, and Sam does have a point, but I also read that the kid in that image sued over it on the basis of it being CSAM and lost, so unless the law changes drastically (which it might with the current SCOTUS), then that particular album cover and others like it should be safe.
Re: Re: Re:6
Liberal or conservative, it’s unlikely that laws on non-sexualised nude art are going to change. There’s 200 years of cases and every time something is questionable but not, er, explicitly in violation has survived since the 50s.
Nirvana, Scorpions, and LZ may be the most public ones but hundreds of album covers have been litigated and survived.
It’s one place I don’t think scotus will touch: art/entertainment.
Re: Re: Re:4
You can.
Re: Re: Re:5
Wow, you’re super late to the party, aren’t you? Autie already conceded the point 16 minutes before you posted.
Re:
They are scared of the opposite sex, because they might lose their self control if exposed to someone who stimulates their imagination.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re:
I see they are flagging heterosexual male sentiment again here at TD. Ahh, the Velvety Mafia, its flag brigade, led by Big Pharma and Alana Boltwood’s Army of (gay) incels, and their Bronfman/Pritzger/ crime family backers.
That said, crack and crevice–mmmm! It’s good medicine in its own right.
Re: Re:
You took a wrong turn at Albuquerque; this isn’t your Qanon slumber party.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
Meh, your boy Enrique Tarrio and all those evil white racists and bad guys du jour in QAnon are largely Latino’s lol, and Tarrio is a 100% FBI informant.
I don’t participate in bipolar narratives or US politics of division, and I am not a fascist or racist like yourself. Also, I have read your work elsewhere, and guess what? Yup, you do mediocre like no one else could.
But why’s tell me do you work so hard to occlude facts like Your Boy Tarrio, and all of the other rats, scumbags, and informants that I out here?
Meh–never mind….we know.
Re: Re: Re:2
I don’t participate in bipolar narratives or US politics of division…
You’ve no need. Your intellect’s that poor you easily entertain yourself by posting shit.
…and I am not a fascist or racist like yourself.
Says you that tried to displace pygmies into another cultural group just to back your preojecting accusation of racism. BTW, given what I’ve read about Enrique Tarrio, he seems to be more like you than Stephen.
I’m amazed that they managed to have 3 whole female officers to offer up in the ‘but i have a black friend’ defense.
Remember men can be as exposed as they want, but women must be covered lest their feminine wiles over take the man & make him lose control & forcibly make her into his baby mama.
Time is amazing…
In Tokyo it’s tomorrow,
In Eurpoe its 5 hours ahead…
And in the US its the 1950’s and old white men get to be in charge.
Re:
1780s.
Fixed that for you.
Re: Re:
If it were the 1780s, the Second Amendment would only be used for justifying well-regulated militia, not everyone and his baby child being allowed to wield AR-15s. The 1950s are closer to the fake-1780s “originalists” who are a lot more insane about both guns and abortion than the Founders were. Even if they moved a bit more towards sanity regarding slavery of male non-whites.
Re: Re: Re:
The idea of maintains arms for a militia makes sense if you think about it from an older military perspective.
First, like most countries, the US can create forced conscription.
Second, just because the military currently supplies weapons that was not always the case. Even today, following assignment, members can carry personal weapons of choice on base, on duty, and on tour. There are restrictions, but few.
Third, incase of a homeland attack the immediate mobilisation of a counter militia is sped by an armed populace.
I’m not going to get into a gun rights debate her, if it can be helped. I rather do see a problem with striking the New York law. As it violates a state’s right to self rule.
I firmly believe that such restrictions on our right should be at the lowest, most local, of governance. What is reasonable in NYC is ludicrous in the Niagara or adirondacks
What works in LA is bonkers in the Sierra!
What works for Chicago is nuts on the high plains.
The problem stems from law made by a localised populace for the whole.
The vast majority of a state’s vote comes from a single area. If not a single city. And senatorial law rarely sways to reality.
A farmer knows not how to best work a city, nor a city the hunter in the woods. That is the problem with countries like ours. Australia, China, Russia. We’re high. And generally not populated. Law must take such things into consideration.
Re: Re: Re:2
“Third, incase of a homeland attack the immediate mobilisation of a counter militia is sped by an armed populace.”
I’m sorry I am just stuck with this mental image of very heavy good ole boys in their power chairs rolling down the highway to stop the invading hoard.
Re: Re: Re:3
As funny as that it (see Hobo with a a Shotgun, Bad Asses), in reality 99.9% of gun owners are law abiding citizens with no criminal intent and you’d never know they were gun owners.
People who know how to use them. People ready to defend not just their home, but our home.
People like the Proud boys are a tiny fractional percentage.
And to be honest, despite their rather honourable web page statements; I’d bet money on most proud boys running away firing over their shoulders and taking out half of us in doing so.
Re: Re: Re:4
I just wish more of them got listened to by the elected set.
Instead they listen to the cosplaying screamers who help keep the stereotype of gun owners being insane idiots alive.
And I will freely admit that the other side has a bunch of screaming morons too.
The issue is so overwrought for no good reason other than lots of people being focused on “winning”. (By which they mean the other side gets nothing they want at all)
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
The Proud Boys aren’t a real sociaal movement, having been co-opted by FBI informants, as we saw in the Michigan fake kidnapping plot crumbling like a soggy cracker, and then, the “movement” of “white supremacists” being led by a Latino FBI informant, lol.
But yeah–99% of gun owners/users are in fact law abiding citizens.
Re: Re: Re:5
Links. Real ones.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:6
Thanks, Amber!
Re:
…but women must be covered lest their feminine wiles over take the man & make him lose control & forcibly make her into his baby mama.
Funny, I could’ve sworn it was the SCOTUS that’s just done that. (-_Q)
Re:
In Europe, its 5 hours ahead…
Eight hours, actually. The home of Techdirt is in California, and Greenwich Mean Time is eight hours ahead of Pacific Daylight Time.
Re: Re:
8 hours ahead of BST (currently GMT – 7)
Agree with the sentiment tho’
Re: Re: Re:
8 hours ahead of BST (currently GMT – 7)
No. British Summer Time is equivalent to Daylight Savings Time, and so the UK is still ahead of California by eight hours.
Re: Re: Re:2
True, but you actually said “Greenwich Mean Time is eight hours ahead of Pacific Daylight Time”
Re: Re: Re:3
Which are the basic references regardless of whether it’s winter or summer. Kid, finish school, yeah?
Re: Re:
More like 50 years.
Re: Re: Re:
More like 50 years.
In the way people are treated or in the way that rights (read: monopolies) are protected by legislation?
Portland police Cmdr. Erica Hurley defended the arrest at the hearing, saying officers had probable cause to arrest the woman who wasn’t allowing traffic to move through. Police cars need to get through traffic just like any other cars, she said.
…
The city will pay $75,000 to settle a federal lawsuit filed by a woman arrested by Portland police in 2019 after she was seen twerking in a bike lane downtown…
Unless the portion of bike lane she was twerking in was right at the intersection where people might need to turn and therefore cross said bike lane that defense of the arrest paints the driving habits of the local police in a really bad light because the entire point of the bike lane is that cars don’t go there.
As for the first case if that counts as indecent exposure then break out the burkas because I’ve seen many a swimsuit that shows noticeably more skin than that shirt and those shorts, though strangely enough people seem perfectly fine with those.
Re:
i would argue the same but any traversible or near-traversible volume of space is a cop’s right-of-way per their whim. In practice. Unless they get called on it so hard that oh-shit-i-guess-something-must-be-done™.
i’ll never forget the cartoonish level of trope-fulfillment displayed by cops in a cruiser, in Sunday morning church traffic, as they drove up on the sidewalk past two buildings to get ro the corner donut shop.
In sheer incredulity one may be compelled to ask, “Who the hell actually does that?!” But we, sadly, know who.
Empty slogan
Land of the free? Really?
Re:
A more pertinent question: Home of the brave? Really?
Re: Re:
Well, yes, home of the brave. But while they were out, the others exchanged the locks.
cars in bike lanes - dangerous driving
If the second woman has proof that the police officers were driving their cars in a bike lane, that is I would say, proof positive that they were driving dangerously and therefore should have their drivers licenses confiscated.
D. In this code, for purposes of this Section ...
“(4) “Indecent manner” means conduct that amounts to a form of immorality relating to sexual impurity which is grossly vulgar, obscene, and repugnant to common propriety, and tends to excite sexual desire or deprave morals with respect to sexual relations.”
now define: immorality, vulgar, propriety etc.
This is all “things that I don’t like” passed into law
Re:
This is all “things I don’t like” passed into law.
I don’t know. I read ‘common propriety’ to mean the moral views of most people, not those of a couple of cops frustrated in their desire to drive illegally in a bike lane. The language seems to be just vague enough to take account of changing social mores and no more.
I could scarcely have kept count of the number of girls wearing short shorts and crop tops at my local Independence Day celebration. It was such a widespread phenomenon my family was joking about their “uniform”. The numerous police in the area did nothing about it.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Meh. These types of cases pale next to men shot for having a cell phone to film bad cops, only to have those cops say “I thought his phone was an AK-47!!!!”
Its a shallow interprettion of women’s right’s, and these exact types of women DO NOT defend men, for the most part.
This whole “let me be all SLUTWALKED, while chasing my five babay-daddies is counterproductive to “rights” of any kind. No uunity CAN be had, if the “womans body” is central to the narrative.
FUCK such women, but us condoms for YOUR protection. And all of that–and no male pill. By design.
Re:
Psst hey guise, guise…
I found the incel.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
Says the person who George Carlin noted “have you ever noticed that the people who are against abortion are people no one would fuck anyways?”
Lol. But in your case, the reverse is true–you are pro-abortion because anything that would come from your seed would be genetically doomed, and should be aborted.
As for not getting laid–I am fortunate to live where women are in excess, and the price of dinner is usually enough to get some poonie. Failing that, there’s an entire range of options on the sex menu where men can easily fulfill every single whim of desire. Incel’s is such a medical mafia PSYOP.
Such women here have full access to ALL BIRTH CONTROL, including late term mabortion, and they are taught from early ages that if they have a baby, they must take care of it–and few have a need for the internet spergs and forum warriors such as you claiming to uphold their rights.
In other words–a place where REAL FEMINISM exists.
so, if you’re gonna sputter on about incels (spergs will be sputtering) maybe educate yourself about what the incels are as a PSYOP–a group started by a lesbian man-hater named Alana Boltwood, of Canadian Mental Health–allied with the Bronfman crime family of modern day Big Pharma drug pushers at Canadian Mental Health.
Normal people would find that linkage troubling, but not sputtering spergs, for some reason.Take yer’ meds! Cut off your weiner! Sew it back on again!
Buffalo Bill’s of the world UNITE!
Re: Re: Re:
In this one the projection is strong. Yes, hrrrrm.
Re: Re: Re:
bored now
you’re boring
Re: Re: Re:2
blinks
He thought telling the gay guy he’d never fsck a woman and produce children was an insult…
I wish Stephen T. Stone had dark Willows powers to cure our collective boredom.
Re: Re: Re:3
He thought telling the gay guy he’d never fsck a woman and produce children was an insult…
The fool never realized it only proves his ignorance. A quick Google search shows he’s necroposted as far back as 2006, so he should have come across one of your comments where you speak about your sexuality somewhere.
Re: Re: Re:4
Thank’s, Amber!
[Citation Needed]
Re: Re: Re:4
[Citation Does Not Exist]
Re: Re: Re:5
[Citation Does Not Exist]
Citation is hidden in a mass of your spam, actually, just like you planned.
AT least you can finally admit it.
Re: Re: Re:6
In the novel–and in meatspace–we identify you, and call you what you are, by your proper namesaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa; “Neocon religious spam-bots, using every trick in the book to subvert open discourse.”
And despite this forums liking or tolerance of/for you, we defeat you elsewhere, every day.
Re: Re: Re:4
Right, my life exists to find out how some shitbag Anonymous Coward from .mil, .intel, .incel, .intel, .ADL .FBI “thinks.” Lol.
As if they do that.
Confession: I did that and guess what? I found YOU! Look! The US Army is all-on-top of that incel narrative, lol.
Army Basic Training has the “ability” to weed out the “incels” using the profile provided to it by a seriously deranged Bronfman drug and crime familt associate, Alana Boltwood, a gender lesbian, who sits on the board of Mental Health Canada.
Deep trolling indeed.
Those poor boys who get swept up in t (hopefuly not the sons and daughter of Techdirt authors, mind you, at least for now!)
Big Drugs + Forever War = stupid males who are used as PSYOP, AND FOILS FOR BABY THEFT BY bOG pHARMA.
Please–send the women into action–THE TRENCHES–and let nature sort out the chimps from the bonobos via “direct action.”
Feminism died at “co-option by MS Atty Gen’l Lynn Fitch, and abortion “rights.”
And, Stephen whatshisname above, a racist by any definition, and his AC army too.
No pedestal cannot be knocked over, or melted down, my neo-racist “gang” of dedicated speech suppressors.
Re: Re: Re:3
… well, Dark Willow was h…o…T…!
Lol.
Re: Re: Re:4
and when Dark Willow said bored now it resulted in the gay having all of the flesh ripped form his body in 1 smooth motion.
Re: Re: Re:5
Hey, I like dangerous partners. Lol.
But DW was, well, look but don’t touch. 😉
Re: Re: Re:3
Good job outing a purported gay man! So respectful of that person’s choices!
And yet you cling to this post like a dead log clings to fungus. Guess who is the fungus? And:
In no way is the same as this:
I know many gay men who have had a go with women, and vice versa–and gay parent’s are EVERYWHERE you look in the US-FVEY’s nations.
SO, stop stereotyping the gay community–seriously, you might have these spergs trained that you are somehow a normal non-intel type human, but you can’t convince me. AI be like AI be. And Gregory Bateson outlined all of this, ala schismogenesis, which is what is going on here, whether you get it or not.
The evidence? How they follow you and a few of the other PSYOPerators on this board, like the cray-cray’s followed Randall P. McMurphy in Cuckoo’s Nest, but all chicken out at the last minute and self implode when Nurse Ratched shows up. Except for the Big Injun’, of course, the one guy who gets it–the irish, and the Injun’s cannot be zombified, lol.
One of these AC’s here, for example, is a self-professed psychotherapist or something similar–not The Ratchedhead, but close.
Apologies on my lack of knowledge about the DarkWillows metaphor–not my kind of literature.
Re: Re: Re:4
Good job outing a purported gay man! So respectful of that person’s choices!
Question: when did you choose to be straight and to not have sex with a woman, PRC shill?
Re: Re: Re:2
That weird moment, when authors talk to themselves. You, that comment, just now.
Re: Re: Re:3
Every accusation a projection.
Re: Re: Re:
We’re still waiting for real links to back what you say. Without them, you’re just trolling.
Re: Re: Re:2
Links Here. Some ass amongst you AC bots recently claimed I “forced them” to reply to this thread on America’s Most Sacred and Hard Fought, Harder Fucked Freedom Day, July Fourht, 2022.
Enjoy!
Re: Re: Re:3
So that’s a refusal to provide links backing your deranged hypotheses, proving you’re just lying as usual.
Re: Re:
Psst, hay galllls, I found the crypto-religionst with stock in the DVIC and its associated incel PSYOP narrative via Alana Boltwood of Canadian Mental Health (who created the incel movement)–allied with the Bronfman crime family of modern day Big Pharma drug pushers at Canadian Mental Health.
HHH, JK–it’s actually an “in-house” troll.
Re: Re: Re:
HHH, JK–it’s actually an “in-house” troll.
You’re not in-house, liar.
Re: Re: Re:2
Right. Unlike yourself, I am human. You, not so much, US-FVEY’s troll.
Well, this is clearly the right and justified usage of our tax dollars…not!
What You Read v. What You See
What you read:
Read it Again, and:
“Anonymous “progressive, concerned citizens’s” in a nebulous and vaguely defined police state, formerly know as the USA where most sensible activists long fled from, realizing the singlemom’s are a trope of the KKK, and tools of singlemom and Mississippi State Attorney Gerneral Lynn Fitch, who just single-handedly destroyed abortion rights along with six people who perpetuate “women shalt not be held accountable” memetics, via religion.
Read it again, and:
What you read:
“Yeah, but seriously, the USA has been a two-tiered surveillance state that began at the dawn of the DVIC–around 1993, and since some allowed the DVIC to begin databasing men, gang databasing children, incentivizng the division of families, and creating incentives for singlemoms who care little about their actual rights or education! Just LOOK at Roe v. Wade in the shitter now, like an oborted dream law!Socialist nations have a better system, whereby the children are cared for by multiple parents, and child support is within reasonable guidelines–many mothers also are breadwinners and non-custodial parents”
What you see:
“WTF, you are definitely a COMMUNIST TROLL/RUSSIAN/CHINEEEESE/incel/intel agent/mysoginist/trolling as far back as 2006–gots EVEEDENCE, holmes!!!!! Boring! Enough Already!!! PROJECTION!!!ANTISEMITISM FTW!!!!!!!!!!
The loss of this one particular women’s right can be traced to two things:
Re:
Fuck off, Phillip, you little shit.
Re: Re:
You, specifically,like the word “little.’ please do tell, AC spammer.