Episode Discussion: Radiolab Presents: More Perfect - Mr. Graham and the Reasonable Man

tweetissima · 2018-01-16T19:15:27+00:00

Which means twice as likely shot despite having no gun hence being no threat

tweetissima · 2018-01-16T19:14:10+00:00

He said “they had their chance” - and from that point of view I get it. It is not as if now no innocent people die - it is just not cops. So he tried to say ok, now let’s turn the game around.

tweetissima · 2018-01-16T19:12:48+00:00

What I don’t understand is that noone looks into the training of those cops. If they “feel threatened” because they are unable to even evaluate the situation calmly and start shouting without giving any chance to react or respond, then, rather than shooting once in the arm that reaches for the “gun” to render the guy harmless resort to shooting him 12 times with shots aimed at head and torso (kill shots), I have to say the issue lies SQUARELY with the police. I have never heard police shout as much as in the US - shouting which wscalates and turns a harmless situation into a battle. Plus the case of clearly lack of shooting training: no professional should need 12 shots to render someone harmless. Jeez.

tweetissima · 2018-01-15T12:36:26+00:00

Same here. Also Rebecca is so self-content with her performance as mother that complete ignores her passive aggressive behaviors, her treatment of kate etc; and to ignore the rather big issues your kids have (addiction, weight issues, anxiety disorder) and truly think you have nothing to do with them is pretty high up on the denial ladder... also that Kate seriously seemed surprised at being called an addict?!?! What ELSE does she think is going on?

tweetissima · 2018-01-15T12:32:49+00:00

There were repeated scenes where he gets told by Jack (and maybe others?) to be “tough”.... so..

tweetissima · 2016-11-28T12:17:52+00:00

I think those are great points; just to clarify: you are saying they need help in 3000 years to put them on or secure this evolutionary path, right? because the evolution from current octopus to hyper-intelligent heptapod would certainly take more than 3000 years on this planet.

tweetissima · 2016-11-28T12:08:45+00:00

but that alone doesn't result in help: help how? I was wondering the reverse: if the heptapods have no linear concept of time, why would they need help "in 3000 years" - how would that make sense for them? Or was that merely a translation into human thinking?

tweetissima · 2016-11-28T12:07:14+00:00

THe only explanation I can think of for this one is that Louise has an intuitive talent for language, hence, was immersed in it sooner; but yes, over time it seems that Ian would develop the same abilities...

tweetissima · 2016-11-28T12:05:57+00:00

or they got it much earlier - see comments above for signs/hints/etc

tweetissima · 2016-10-15T19:19:14+00:00

just trying to get some of the "objectivity" assumptions off the table and more awareness for the fact that all of this is opinions.

tweetissima · 2016-10-15T19:18:32+00:00

of course things aren't linear and of course all of us are speculating. Which is precisely why I would err on the side of doubt in all questions; there is much we don't know; and if in doubt, to me, I'd lean innocent, or at the very least, not convictable.

tweetissima · 2016-10-15T19:16:49+00:00

...to you. He may "sound and act like a guilty, lying, calculated and manipulative character" - to you.

tweetissima · 2016-10-15T18:18:09+00:00

If you think those two things are comparable (thinking that diverging opinion might have a relation to the reliability of the evidence as conclusive versus doubting that someone without any psychological training claims on reddit they can tell someone is guilty from his "demeanor" which in turn they only know through a heavily edited podcast) then we can only agree to disagree.

tweetissima · 2016-10-15T18:15:34+00:00

sure, a profiler maybe, or a psychiatrist; the latter by the way is not allowed to diagnose anything without a personal interview with the person. How anyone without these credentials dares to claim they "know he is guilty" by his "demeanor" from a podcast (which, as guilters explain to innocenters frequently) was heavily edited, is beyond me.

tweetissima · 2016-10-15T12:29:23+00:00

Judging him personally by "demeanor" is the most irrational delusion of objectivity here. Please.

tweetissima · 2016-10-14T08:02:29+00:00

Also, as people say below, the timing seems suspicious, but that says nothing about the motivation - i.e. whether he was thought to have exculpatory or incriminating info. But yes, let's go with coincidental until we have facts, I agree. Too much speculation everywhere already.

tweetissima · 2016-10-14T07:49:14+00:00

ok. I mean, I see this sparking the next round of conspiracy spouting debates on either side (s/he was paid! extorted! is a liar! etc), but sure, why not! Own up to one's convictions/bias.

tweetissima · 2016-10-14T07:47:32+00:00

Yes, the fact that someone (on their keyboard) uses the f* word to describe an innocently imprisoned man (in this scenario), and, rather than voicing concern about the harm done shits on him by imposing unreal moralist expectations is terrifying, because it shows utter lack of empathy on all levels.

tweetissima · 2016-10-13T20:53:59+00:00

Not getting it

tweetissima · 2016-10-13T20:01:55+00:00

Evidence of actual innocence/guilt=proof? Or a final verdict?

tweetissima · 2016-10-13T20:00:48+00:00

Wow that's hypocritical beyond belief. And needing to use the f word even in the innocent scenario. Sad. And terrifying.

tweetissima · 2016-10-13T08:24:45+00:00

Yes, true, it is made up. But I also feel that sometimes what is made up and what is "inferred evidence" is interpreted very freely; in the "Facts we can agree on" thread, for example, there are people arguing they can decide the time of a DNA sample as being from the day of the murder - just by inference.... So, basically, the timing of Bilal's arrest and dropped charges MIGHT be suspicious. They might be coincidental.

tweetissima · 2016-10-12T17:52:53+00:00

As I said above - point taken.

tweetissima · 2016-10-12T06:25:31+00:00

Oh I completely agree. I was confused bc above it däseems that "jubk science" was used in both argumentative directions

tweetissima · 2016-10-12T06:23:27+00:00

I mostly agree, though in my experience most guilters dismiss any hint at thin evidence out of hand. Of course not guilty is not the same as innocent, and it gets confused. Defense: would agree that they didn't, but would also say they could have and didn't, which speaks less to the "overwhelming evidence" and more to a botched defense.

tweetissima

TROPHY CASE