Hint:
Some of those that work forces Are the same that burn crosses
SOME OF THOSE WHO WORK FORCES, ARE THE SAME THAT BURN CROSSES
HGNUGH
Killing in the name of! Killing in the name of.
Some of those that burn crosses Are the same that hold office
(from the show outside the DNC in 2000. Watch it if you haven’t)
That would make a kickass lyric someone should put that in a song
“Yes, Sir, I will do what you tell me!”
-TheGreatWhiteNorthFreePress
Wonder if he figured it out yet?
Figured what out?
–TheGreatWhiteNorthFreePressYou know he saw that and probably thought how clever he was to point this out while posting it.
That’s not even what a “misnomer” is.
It’s a female gnome, right?
Yes; specifically an unmarried one.
Reminds me of bad old days when Ukrainian cops were the worst shit. Like - plant evidence and arrest you worst shit, beat you up in the alley because you look weird shit. You see a cop - you go the opposite side of the street as far as possible because that motherfucker will have a problem with you. And then one day - the government pulled the trigger on the police reform, fired pretty much anyone with any kind of negative rep and replaced them with new recruits and it is almost as if years of fucked up bullshit were all just the bad dream.
Oooo, so close!
Hannah Montana is a girl and therefore can’t be a “proud boy”. Utter nonsense.
Now that you mention it, I have never ever seen Hannah Montana and Joe Montana in the same place either…
So they don’t know what the word ‘misnomer’ means at all? You really gotta be brain dead…
Reading comprehension test:
Why did the author compare cops and proud boys to Miley Cyrus and Hannah Montana?
What conclusions can you draw about the author based on this comparison?
The author participates in society. The author is not opposed to Disney.
no positive conclusions, really
/s
A bit more and he gets it.
Might be the conspiratorial part of my brain coming through, but I’m half convinced it’s not just a stupid person, but an AI that completely missed the point.
I almost wonder if there shouldn’t be an extension or corollary of Hanlon’s Razor somewhere to account for AI.
“Never attribute to malice that which can be better explained by stupidity, but never attribute to stupidity that which can be better explained by malicious chatbots.”
Look at their username. Being obtuse to obvious shit like that is a common right-wing play.
I almost wonder if there shouldn’t be an extension or corollary of Hanlon’s Razor somewhere to account for AI.
I feel like Hanlon’s Razor is a disease more than it is useful to anyone in any situation.
So frequently do normal people refuse to acknowledge that others can simply be malicious, that this rule only serves to aid people in giving the benefit of the doubt to people who act in ways to abuse it.
Politicians, shitty bosses, unscrupulous contractors, etc etc. All of these people hurt others by abusing their presumptions of innocence.
It’s not perfect, but the basic idea is that assuming malice as default in every scenario will cause one to spiral into paranoia.
It’s not saying “people are never malicious and always just stupid” but just asking someone to take a step back from the situation and ask which is likelier in context.
It’s not perfect, but the basic idea is that assuming malice as default in every scenario will cause one to spiral into paranoia.
But thats not what the phrase actuyally advocates for. It feels almost like a bit of theological apologia to save a phrase that really does far more harm than good in my estimation.
Wooooooosh!
If by swing you mean punch themself in the dick, sure.
THAT’S THE FUCKING POINT! WHAT DID HE THINK THE POINT WAS?
A retired DC cop was convicted of tipping off Enrique Tarrio about an arrest warrant for burning a Black Lives Matter banner. He claimed he was “building rapport” with Tarrio.
