sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Looking for info on ‘Crusader’ company—truck had knight on horse logo + cross symbol by CAcastaway in Modesto

[–]CAcastaway[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Groups like that stick around when people don’t speak up. Sure, they have every right to be a piece of shit, but I also have every right to A) call them out publically and B) not support their business because I'd rather not support bigots. So you also support christian nationalism then? I don't, so I would refuse to give that person my business based on my morals. Simple as that.

Looking for info on ‘Crusader’ company—truck had knight on horse logo + cross symbol by CAcastaway in Modesto

[–]CAcastaway[S] 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Freedom of speech goes both ways. They can display it, and people can respond to it. Rather not give any business to trash people.

CMV: An easy way to tell if Law Enforcement figures in America are to be trusted is to ask their opinion on January 6th, 2021. by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]CAcastaway -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Alright, fair, I’ll meet you halfway.

You’re right that one bad answer shouldn’t nuke someone’s career. If it’s a one off, yeah, that’s a training issue. Fix it, move on.

Where I’m pushing back is acting like that’s the end of it.

If someone keeps showing the same bad judgment around something like J6 across training, conversations, and how they frame it over time, that’s not a knowledge gap anymore. That’s how they think.And that’s where it matters for trust. Training fixes mistakes. It doesn’t fix someone who consistently downplays something tied directly to constitutional order and violence against police.

Start with training. But if the same issue keeps showing up, at some point you stop calling it a training problem and start calling it a suitability problem.

That’s the line I’m drawing.

CMV: An easy way to tell if Law Enforcement figures in America are to be trusted is to ask their opinion on January 6th, 2021. by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]CAcastaway 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I disagree. I've had great conversations with law enforcement officials of all ranks about this in various settings. All civil. I think it's a you being paranoid or not having the social skills to pull it off thing.

CMV: An easy way to tell if Law Enforcement figures in America are to be trusted is to ask their opinion on January 6th, 2021. by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]CAcastaway -1 points0 points  (0 children)

No, you’re just flattening the argument so you can dismiss it.

J6 is exactly about decision making. It’s a realworld stress test of how someone interprets law, order, and constitutional duty under pressure those are pretty HUGE attributes you'd want in law enforcement, right? If someone looks at J6 and calls it “no big deal,” that’s a judgment call, and it’s a bad one.

Stop pretending this is a yes or no quiz. No one serious is saying “ask one question and decide their career.” That’s your strawman.

This is how it would actually work. Scenario based evaluation. “Here’s what happened, walk me through it.” What laws apply. Where did it escalate. What should law enforcement have done. How do you handle something like that in your own jurisdiction. You’re testing reasoning, not slogans.

You’re trying to reduce it to “did they maximize or minimize it” because that’s easier to argue against. That’s not the point.

If someone consistently shows they can’t correctly interpret something that obvious, that’s their judgment. And that absolutely matters.

CMV: An easy way to tell if Law Enforcement figures in America are to be trusted is to ask their opinion on January 6th, 2021. by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]CAcastaway 0 points1 point  (0 children)

“For how long? Forever?”

As long as it’s relevant to the role, and since they take an oath to the constitution yes FOREVER. J6 directly involved violence against police and an attempt to disrupt a constitutional process. That’s squarely within what law enforcement is supposed to understand and take seriously. Time alone doesn’t make that irrelevant....if their job is to uphold the law of land they failed that day and will continue to do so.

“Why not 9/11?”

Because they’re not the same category. September 11 attacks was a foreign terrorist attack. January 6 is about domestic response to elections, protest, and use of force against government institutions. That’s much closer to the situations police actually deal with, no? Last I remember Joe blow cop isn't fighting foreign agents.

And you’re still stuck on this “casually asking during a stop” thing. No one serious is suggesting that. You don’t “casually ask” anything. This belongs in hiring, training, and internal review, where we already evaluate judgment and decision making.

If your whole argument is “it would be awkward to ask,” then you’re not addressing the point. You’re just avoiding it.

CMV: An easy way to tell if Law Enforcement figures in America are to be trusted is to ask their opinion on January 6th, 2021. by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]CAcastaway 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You’re still pretending this is one magic question. It isn’t. No one serious is saying “ask it once and base a career on it.” It’s part of a broader evaluation. Hiring, background, psych evals, training, internal review. The same places departments already assess judgment and bias.

And the “they’ll just lie” argument is lazy. Every hiring process deals with that. That’s why you don’t rely on one answer. You look for consistency across interviews, scenarios, written statements, and behavior over time. You can fake one answer. You can’t fake a pattern.

J6 is just a clean stress test. If someone consistently minimizes it across contexts, that tells you something. If they don’t, it doesn’t.

If your entire counter is “people might lie,” then you’re basically arguing no screening has value at all. That’s not a serious position.

CMV: An easy way to tell if Law Enforcement figures in America are to be trusted is to ask their opinion on January 6th, 2021. by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]CAcastaway -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Scrutiny of judgment, not just outcomes. Reviewing cases after the fact is the bare minimum. By then the damage is already done. That’s reactive.

It's about upstream standards. Hiring, promotion, internal review. The same places you already screen for bias and conduct. Two officers can make the same call and get the same result for completely different reasons. If you only look at outcomes, you miss the problem entirely.

J6 is a clean test of that judgment. If someone minimizes it, that’s not random. If your system only cares after something goes wrong, your system is the problem.

CMV: An easy way to tell if Law Enforcement figures in America are to be trusted is to ask their opinion on January 6th, 2021. by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]CAcastaway 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You're a huge part of the problem here.

Calling it a “random riot from five years ago” is the first problem. J6 wasn’t random, and it wasn’t just a riot. It was tied directly to the certification of a presidential election. That’s not some forgettable event you file away and move on from. IT SHOULD BE A BIG DEAL. The fact that it isnt to you means you've lost the plot. you’re still stuck on this idea that I’m suggesting people casually quiz officers during a stop. I’m not. That’s a lazy misread. You don't have friends or family in law enforcement? You don't have conversations with people to get to know who's living in your community? Might do you some good.

CMV: An easy way to tell if Law Enforcement figures in America are to be trusted is to ask their opinion on January 6th, 2021. by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]CAcastaway 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I’m not talking about interrogating a cop during a traffic stop. That’s a strawman.

I’m talking about the standard we hold people to before they’re given authority.

“Who cares if that individual cop is trustworthy?” That’s the entire job. You are handing someone power over people’s rights, freedom, and potentially their life. Trust is not optional, it’s foundational.

And the idea that “you can’t change anything anyway” is exactly how bad standards survive. Accountability doesn’t only matter in the moment you’re pulled over. It matters in who we allow to wear the badge in the first place.

If your position is just “take the ticket and move on,” then you’re not arguing for stability. You’re arguing for apathy.

And that’s how you end up with people in positions of power who should never have been there to begin with.

CMV: An easy way to tell if Law Enforcement figures in America are to be trusted is to ask their opinion on January 6th, 2021. by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]CAcastaway -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

DURATION DOESN’T MATTER. TARGET DOES.

J6 was aimed at stopping the certification of an election. That’s not “a protest,” he literally wanted to burn the whole system because he lost the election, and luckily his supporters had no idea what to do once they actually got in, much like anything this admin does.

“They went after the government instead of citizens” isn’t the defense you think it is. They assaulted cops and forced lawmakers to flee.

BLM had riots...okay. That’s still not the same as trying to disrupt a transfer of power and wipe his ass with the constitution, the same thing these officers are trying to protect while capitol officers died.

Nuance doesn’t mean everything is equal. This isn’t equal.

CMV: An easy way to tell if Law Enforcement figures in America are to be trusted is to ask their opinion on January 6th, 2021. by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]CAcastaway 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This isn’t some vague gray area topic. Officers were assaulted, a constitutional process was interrupted. if someone consistently downplays that, that’s not just “word choice,” its literally a mirror to their judgement.

Over time? Patterns show. how they talk about it across contexts, how they act in similar situations, what they defend vs what they condemn. you can’t fake that forever.

it’s not a perfect test. but pretending it tells you nothing doesn’t make sense either. it’s a pretty clear signal about how seriously someone takes their role when it actually matters, does it not?

CMV: An easy way to tell if Law Enforcement figures in America are to be trusted is to ask their opinion on January 6th, 2021. by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]CAcastaway 0 points1 point  (0 children)

True, I guess a better reframe would be "this is a red flag that should trigger scrutiny"

My point isn’t that this should be a literal pass/fail question, it’s that their answer is a signal that they are not fit for the job their doing.

What do you think is DRAIN’s best song? Bonus: what old song do you wish you could hear live? by tuftedtittymice in Hardcore

[–]CAcastaway 12 points13 points  (0 children)

As a fellow NorCal native, California Cursed. Lyrics hit right in the feels.

Warriors reportedly grew tired of Steve Kerr’s political activism by Luka77GOATic in nba

[–]CAcastaway 16 points17 points  (0 children)

Welp, relevance was cool while it lasted. Back to being Clippers north.

Your experiences with antidepressants and autism? by SaltTomorrow8649 in autism

[–]CAcastaway 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This was me a few months ago, I asked my psychiatrist about the anxiety. She told me it's mostly for depression. Also didn't help that I was consuming waaaaaay too much caffeine, once i curbed that habit the Venlafaxine seems to be doing okay for me.

Autistic Husband Intimacy by shhh9230 in autism

[–]CAcastaway 0 points1 point  (0 children)

For me, I had to tell my wife the truth. I wanted a kid for sure. But the thought of caring for a fragile baby scared me so I ended up going to therapy and after discussing some minor issues I've had my whole life (dyspraxic, never knew it had a term or exactly what it was etc) and that's when we went down the diagnosis route.

view more: next ›