In the most pedantic and exacting way, you might be right!

The topic here (and my original point) is that the image you’ve linked doesn’t tell us anything except that the NYPD have claimed it’s a still from the bodycam footage. We don’t have any of the context it occurs within, so while yes that is an image of a knife, we don’t actually know that it’s a still taken from bodycam footage of the incident. The original poster’s point was that at the time we didn’t (and as of writing, still don’t) have any evidence that they aren’t just making shit up. We still don’t. And as much as I’d love for the NYPD not to be pulling the same bullshit they always always try to pull, we have no reason to believe that right now. They have earned zero of the credibility you’re affording them.

And, really, a personal appeal: Is it a reasonable use of your time to try and nickle-and-dime the issue until an incident where the NYPD escalated a $2.90 situation to the point that two innocent bystanders were shot somehow becomes palatable? Who cares if he had a knife, even according to them he did not pose a present threat until he was provoked. The NYPD is a goddamn army with the most advanced surveillance system in the entire world and that dude was on a train. They absolutely could have just mailed the ticket to his house like they do with 90% of farejumpers, or if they wanted to be bastards, they could have followed him via surveillance, isolated and then arrested him safely elsewhere. They do that all the time in other cities. Engaging a potentially violent subject on a fucking subway train is beyond inexcusable no matter what the guy did, because while he’s a shithead for (in all likelihood) trying to stab the cops, the cops should not have allowed themselves to be in that situation in the first place. It’s basic shit, volunteers at comic-con can do it, why can’t these inept SOBs?

While they’re being excessively conspiratorial (For fuck’s sake, stills from an uncompressed video are that clear), that image doesn’t tell us anything. We don’t know who the person in that image even was, and it could just as easily have been a bystander, the alleged fare jumper or the cop who got shot that was wearing plain clothes. They could easily answer this question by just releasing the bodycam footage, but they haven’t done that, and time and time again we’ve seen the NYPD refuse to release any of the footage except some juicy still images to cover up gross misconduct of an officer. Personally I doubt this is the case, but the time when I could blindly accept that has long passed.

Until they release the body cam footage, all we have is a blurry photo of someone on the ground holding a knife. As nice as that image is, it does nothing to support the claim that they were “charged at with a knife” and that is the claim people are holding you to task over (and assuming that is true, just allowing this situation to escalate to that point was inexcusably incompetent). The NYPD has been caught intentionally misleading the public with bodycam footage many times before and thus lack the credibility to be believed without evidence, especially when they are being this cagey over releasing the footage. This may very well have been the case, but until they prove it we can’t reasonably take them at their word and you damn well know it.

I understand the revenge fantasy, but advocating for the public torture of someone is fucked up, even if they are a monstrous piece of shit like this guy.

So to summarize, people that don’t google things or educate themselves are ‘stupid’ and ‘dunces’ and your example of this, a quote from google that turns out to be wildly incorrect in this context, isn’t evidence I can use, because it’s just an example of how easy it is to look things up.

Nnnno, I’m sorry, you’ve misunderstood - I was airing my (fairly reasonable) doubt that you don’t know why it shouldn’t be used on those types of fires.

It is, I admit, also not my responsibility to educate those too stupid to google stuff, but just for fun: Electrocution risk, grease fires explode when doused with water, unknown chemicals may interact with water unpredictably.

Water is absolutely used to combat battery fires. It won’t extinguish them, but since firefighting is more complicated than “it puts the water on the flames or else it gets the hose again”, that’s not really the goal. It’s to keep the chassis/batteries cool, douse the surrounding area to prevent the fire from spreading and keep any toxic combustion products from spreading via smoke (yes, that means they get washed into the environment. Not ideal, but better than breathing it.)

Mmhmm mmhmm. So by any chance do you know why it shouldn’t be used on those types of fires…?

We can’t do anything except shoot you down. What you want doesn’t exist, not because people are choosing not to create it but because they can’t create it. The ‘paranormal’ isn’t real. Anyone that believes it is is insane, and insane people are not known for their ability to tell compelling stories and hold cameras steadily, nor are they known to pursue and publish media invalidating their own delusions. If you want to see convincingly shot footage, watch the X-Files, it’s a beautiful show. But that’s the best you’re going to get. Because the content you crave does not exist.

In this thread you’ve implied repeatedly that you’re aware of the implausibility of paranormal phenomenon but you’re still going to watch:

“YouTube pranks, edited garbage, and an endless amount of inhumane content”

And if you’re just doing this for amusement, the Why Files does some pretty entertaining stuff reporting on ‘real’ (clarification: these are actual things people believe not just made up for their episode) conspiracies and paranormal events, I can enjoy them even as a skeptic. But if you’re doing this out of actual interest, belief or just to give both sides of the argument a fair shake, I really really really hope that you will take my advice and figure out if this is truly important, or if this is you self-harming out of stubbornness. Because I have been there and it’s really bad for you.

I really think you should reflect on the reason why there is absolutely zero evidence of paranormal phenomenon.

Schrödinger was criticizing the interpretation of quantum mechanics, Tesla generated way more garbage than he did innovations, the Drake equation is a novelty (and Drake repeatedly clarified that it was conjecture until we find any evidence of ETI), SETI is awesome.

Everything you just listed is an example of science investigating the tangible aspects of observed phenomenon.

but no one ever shows proof of anything they claim to be real.

Hmmmmm.

This has got to be part of it. IMO, most red wine tastes like boots, and while this is anecdotal, everyone I personally know in my age braket agrees. Non-anecdotally though, there’s so many other options for booze out there that are cheaper and it’s never been easier for a person to try multiple things until they find what they like. I personally think wine is so hyped up culturally in the US and the end product is just… spectacularly underwhelming. Like manky water. Why would I get that when I can spend the same money on 2x the volume of a drink I personally like?

Sure hope this is right.

Continue to go away, griefer.

Plumbing. People seriously underestimate the damage a bad leak can do to a structure.

The problem there isn’t the use of the organs, but that they’re murdering someone to harvest the organs.

(I swear to god I’m not trying to be antagonistic here, I just really like hearing myself talk: )

I think what you’re saying is that, taken in a vacuum, exposure to tiktok is a net negative vs. not having access to tiktok. And I think that from a certain perspective you could very well be correct. I also think you’ve misunderstood me; when I said ‘socially isolated’ I was referring to the near-total social isolation that comes with being unable to access the internet as a modern youth, not just ‘not being able to use tiktok’, which I should perhaps have caught on to and clarified earlier. I agree that tiktok is, on the whole, better for a person not to use. I think we’re broadly in agreement here, though I’m a advocate of the ‘all things in moderation’ school of thought, and a firm supporter of harm reduction (please don’t jeer too much…).

There’s two things I’d like to say, though. The first is that there is no possible way to objectively assess a means of socialization on a Best <> Worst scale, nor is there a way to identify what a ‘personal element’ is. I’m going to assume, hopefully correctly, that you’re in the 20+ age bracket here, and that you did not grow up with digital communication as a particularly large segment of your childhood social interaction. Assuming this lets me point to it as a very reasonable explanation of why you’ve wound up at the conclusion that human interaction has anything built-in, because alternative forms of communication were extremely niche until the “digital revolution” that the millennials and zoomers have experienced growing up.

Human interaction is a wholly learned behavior, one that we get the foundations for during childhood and then find incredibly difficult (or nigh impossible) to re-learn as adults. The reality we are facing (haha) is that children who primarily communicate digitally have developed tone indicators and expressions wholly alien to people unused to the medium. They aren’t missing out on a chunk of human interaction, they’re just interacting differently than what used to be the norm. They may be worse at face to face communication, but that is getting less and less important as we transition to a more connected society. Wholly denying them experience with an entire segment of how people relate and communicate can, I hope you agree, be nothing but detrimental to them.

As a real world example:

I teach computer science (in my copious spare time…), and when I talk to my students I have to be very conscious of the background they have with a given medium. Many students, ones that did not grow up with the internet or older students especially, I have to be much more careful about communicating my meaning when sending them a message because the tone indicators I and my younger / digitally hipper students take for granted just aren’t noticed by people unfamiliar with them. By the same token, many in-person conversations I have require me to be very careful to ensure that body language cues are not missed by those less comfortable with them. It’s a careful line to walk, and overall the students who are familiar with both easily do the best in our courses.

The second thing is, predictably, that all things should be taken in moderation.

Yes, society is transitioning how we primarily interact with each other. No, that doesn’t mean learning how to interact in person is no longer important. I primarily interact with my partner digitally, even though much of our time spent together is in the same room, but there certainly are discussions where it’s much easier to accurately communicate meaning face-to-face. Now admittedly she’s deeply autistic so perhaps she isn’t the best example I could use here, but still. Children spending 100% of their time on their phone or on their computer obviously isn’t healthy (I say, hypocritically), and I doubt you’d find a single person that would claim that it is. But by the same reasoning, they shouldn’t be spending 100% of their time in total digital abstinence. The times, they are a-changing, and neglecting to learn how to communicate effectively is bad no matter what the medium (I again say hypocritically, staring down a 724 word essay on a tiny lemmy thread maybe two people will ever read…)

Sure, and I won’t deny that there’s a problem to be addressed here. I just don’t think it’s the problem that’s being implied in the article. When I was in highschool, several classmates had severe skin problems caused by trying to use a homemade clorox paste to ‘erase’ their freckles. Another guy was hospitalized for trying to use ‘comet’ as a tooth whitening solution (my highschool also had a problem with cows from the neighboring pastures wandering in to eat the flowers in the planters, though, so maybe it’s not the best example to use here. They learned how to use the wheelchair buttons. The ranhers eventually dug a ditch to stop them, which didn’t stop the cows wandering but did provide a place for people to go and have sex during school hours. Yeah, it was a ‘sex ditch’ highschool. What was I talking about.)

My point is that children are idiots, have always been idiots and are always going to be idiots. I love them, and they’re much smarter than most people give them credit for, but still. The real issue here isn’t that they’re finding new and different ways in which to be idiots, but that parents aren’t willing (or more likely, aren’t able due to time, money or social pressures) to provide enough oversight to prevent said childhood dumbassery. The underlaying issues here are way more complex than ‘tiktok bad’, and those are what need addressing. Confiscating smartphones from kids (as some people here seem almost gleeful to advocate) is just a socially convenient way to not take responsibility for actually parenting your children, and denies them a vital tool for interacting with the modern world. It does far more harm than good. A fifteen minute conversation about the strategies tiktok uses to influence them will have more positive benefit on their lives than taking away their phones ever, ever would.

Excepting the fact that I work in public policy research, you may have a point.