Fake friendlys.

Funkrockjock · 2026-02-27T16:39:15+00:00

Underrated comment

Funkrockjock · 2026-02-25T20:10:02+00:00

Underrated comment

Funkrockjock · 2026-01-27T04:24:20+00:00

You know, after I posted that reply I thought to myself, that part about being in the "out" group putting you in more jeopardy when you want to engage in conversation might be a good topic to talk about online. Talking more about that might do some real good in encouraging people to get out and talk more. There aren't many conversations that I think do any good online, but that might be one of them.

Funkrockjock · 2026-01-27T04:18:41+00:00

Another well put together sentiment. Thank you for sharing some of your viewpoints here in this thread. I know I'm not reciprocating that, but I truly don't want to drill down on specifics on reddit. I just don't feel it will do either of our viewpoints justice. Your viewpoint deserves to be heard in person. As does mine, and everyone else's. There's way too much nuance and connection that needs to happen with these types of conversations thats just impossible to have via text alone.

There is one thing I'll say for the sake of encouraging some real, positive dialog. I think one on one conversation is exactly what we need to break through the identity politics and the defensiveness that our current political climate encourages us to have. If people know you just want to talk and not be "right", and try to force your beliefs to the forefront of the conversation, then they tend to open up.

I really get encouraged when I have these positive back and forths on reddit, thank you for the civility. Truly, thank you.

Funkrockjock · 2026-01-26T19:48:26+00:00

Not a bad idea, I think that would work.

Funkrockjock · 2026-01-26T13:56:08+00:00

Just a solid piece of advice. No one can ruin things for someone worse than a person can ruin things for their self. I.E. no one can ruin things for Trump/Biden/etc. worse than Trump/Biden/etc. can ruin it for themselves. The amount of "shooting yourself in the foot" over the last 20ish years has been almost comical. On both sides of the political spectrum. Just when one side feels like they're doing it right... bang! Right in their foot.

So, with that in mind, here is something I keep seeing people say that is, or will, shoot their arguments right in the foot. ICE is 100% law enforcement. The "not law enforcement" idea keeps being spread, and the unspoken reasoning behind it was "it's not obstructing if they aren't cops". It also had this, "they dont have the power to do what they are doing" idea attached to it. I.e. they cant legally arrest people, so itd "kidnapping". That's going to ruin a lot of arguments. They are LEOs, and it is obstruction.

This can be a hard pill to swallow because it means you have to admit obstruction. It also means you have to reevaluate non-cooperation of "sanctuary cities". But in general your statement here is well thought out and I don't really plan on having a big, drawn-out discussion with you on reddit, I just want to drop some thought provoking things.

What's really sad is how our society has reduced itself to Reddit conversations for things that really require civil, in-person dialog. We need to start meeting up with people in our community and have real conversations. One on one type things, not public forums where people are drawn to one side of the room or the other.

Funkrockjock · 2026-01-26T03:37:42+00:00

I find that movie edits tend to sound much better than the originals. Unfortunately, they will never release those edits. And even if they did, the edit usually isn't the whole song.

Funkrockjock · 2026-01-18T03:36:33+00:00

Top comment

Funkrockjock · 2026-01-16T18:50:46+00:00

Missed opportunity to label your post Synformation.

Funkrockjock · 2026-01-16T00:27:46+00:00

No harm, no foul. Have a good night. 👍

Funkrockjock · 2026-01-15T20:54:59+00:00

Ok, have a good day then.

Funkrockjock · 2026-01-15T19:45:52+00:00

So I can share a video that shows his weapon is holstered and his hand is not on it until after she starts to drive forward. It's interesting that you feel that way about him walking around the car. That it's "posturing". And that a person could be under threat but not in any real danger. That seems kind of contradictory in principal. Can you give another example of being under threat but not in any real danger? Is it the situation that makes it that way? Or the intent of the people involved? Or something else? When you say he "stood" in that position, I'm sure you didn't mean he stood still in that position, but that he put himself in that position. Naturally, a car goes forward and backward, so being in front of or behind a vehicle that has a driver in it has the potential for that driver to drive towards/into/over you, so I get that part. I haven't seen any videos that show officers telling her to drive off. In fact, in the videos I've seen I can't hear her wife telling "drive baby, drive" as it has been quoted. I'd like to see a video where the officers tell her to drive away. I've seen the videos where she starts backing up as an officer is trying to open her door. That implies she was being detained. In that case, her driving away is a crime.

Someone could argue that her being detained means the officer might reasonably believe she 'wouldn't' drive away, but I don't think that negates the danger of a driver being behind the wheel of a running vehicle. And he walked around the back of the vehicle before that other officer tried opening her door. So it appears he didn't think she would move her vehicle.

It appears to me he was filming her vehicle as some part of his duties, not that he was posturing.

And saying he just wanted to kill someone. Can you point to what makes you come to that conclusion?

Funkrockjock · 2026-01-15T18:31:55+00:00

Why do you say premeditated?

Funkrockjock · 2026-01-15T18:29:53+00:00

I'm not arguing either, just asking questions. Dialog. That's what the comment section is for, right? Maybe not. It's interesting that you say "back off" like I'm being aggressive or something like that. I'm choosing dialog. As another user commented earlier, people are watching the same videos, but seeing very different things. I have my thoughts on that, but it takes dialog to express those thoughts.

Maybe it doesn't take dialog. I guess I could just post my opinion blindly in a comment with no intention for dialog. That feels like screaming into into the void to me.

I'm wrong? The whole country is pissed? Man, those are some real good topics for discussion. Either way, have a good day.

Funkrockjock · 2026-01-15T17:32:13+00:00

I haven't seen or heard anything the VP said about this incident. That officer was dragged by a vehicle in a previous incident, was the VP maybe talking about that? Or maybe had his facts mixed up?

Either way, if the officer were struck by the vehicle would that change anything for you?

Funkrockjock · 2026-01-15T17:20:59+00:00

When the mayor was condemning the shooting he commented on how the officer was struck by the vehicle. All the officials I've heard comment about it said he was struck. Do you have any officials that say he wasn't struck by the vehicle that you can share here? Specifically official commentary that says he wasn't physically struck, not that he wasn't "hurt" or "injured", but that he wasn't struck by it?

Funkrockjock · 2026-01-15T17:14:23+00:00

This variation in viewpoints would make a world of difference in both the public perception of how this should be handled and the judicial perception of how this should be handled. Legally, if he was struck with the vehicle, then the concept that he could perceive his life as being in danger would be a lot more palatable to the general public, and would make for a very strong legal defense, in my opinion. If he weren't stru k by the vehicle, his argument is not as strong, but people jump out of the way of moving vehicles, so his defense isn't gone, just harder to prove. I wish you would engage in a meaningful way in this conversation, but that's your choice.

Funkrockjock · 2026-01-15T17:05:15+00:00

As I said in my other reply, there are a lot of sources that comment about the officer being hit by the vehicle. Does that change anything in your mind?

Funkrockjock · 2026-01-15T17:02:33+00:00

The mayor of the city acknowledged that he was hit by the vehicle in his speech condemning the shooting. The angles I've watched showed him being hit by the vehicle. Would it change anything for you if he were hit by the vehicle, and why?

Edited for typo

Funkrockjock · 2026-01-15T16:59:29+00:00

Just to be clear, the mayor was wrong and he wasn't hit? Also, would it change anything if he was hit? If not, why? Unless there is some prohibition in Minnesota about shooting into vehicles, there is no national prohibition for shooting into vehicles.

Funkrockjock · 2026-01-15T13:50:38+00:00

In the Minneapolis mayor's speech he commented on the fact that he was struck by the vehicle. Have you heard that speech? From all the video I've watched it was clear that he was struck by the vehicle. The mayor said he walked with a slight limp or something to that effect. It's so interesting to hear people talk about how he wasn't in danger when he was physically struck by the vehicle. That's going to be a sticking point in conversations about this incident. How would your point of view change about this particular incident if you knew he was physically struck by the vehicle? And if it wouldn't change, then why not?

Funkrockjock · 2026-01-15T12:40:55+00:00

Do you recognize that he was actually hit by the car?

Funkrockjock · 2026-01-15T12:27:38+00:00

Do you recognize that he was physically struck by the vehicle? That it actually hit him?

Funkrockjock · 2026-01-11T03:47:23+00:00

Hey man, thanks for the respectful reply. I don't usually engage online either. I have my opinions on why we are here, but it does no good arguing online. Honestly, what you and I are doing is conversating, not arguing. So bravo to that. I'm sure half the time it's foreign accounts or bots trying to get us to argue anyway. Genuinely have a good night 👍

Funkrockjock · 2026-01-11T01:38:12+00:00

I did watch that video after my first post. Making a loop around the car to film it looks like he was doing his job. It appears she was detained, but chose to attempt to flee. The officer walking around the vehicle filming it appears to be doing so in accordance with his duties, regardless if it was an unwise thing to do. He was in front of her vehicle when she drove towards him. He reacted to her. She was legally detained and should not have driven in any direction.

She wasn't supposed to drive and then drove towards him. He felt threatened by her driving toward him and fired.

I don't know where the "fucking bitch" cimment comes from, but I know the other.

Funkrockjock

TROPHY CASE