mcity

>stay up until 2 AM writing a fanfic
>find app I used, despite being online, has not automatically synced to GDocs
>lost every bit of work I did yesterday
>I was about three paragraphs from finishing first chapter
>it even rolled back the title change
>have to rewrite several pages of story

Must....break...world...

Sometimes People of Color are wrong about racial things.

Actually, there is a way to logically end-run around that. Observe!



See! Totally not dehumanizing of anyone at all! It's just that when minorities agree with majorities, they're not really thinking for themselves, is all! They're just following the white person! That's not insulting in the slightest!

>person he's arguing against calls it "hearsay"
>he points out that only second-or-more-order witness testimony is hearsay

WHERPS.

For the record, this person just keeps quoting people's posts and responding to a one or two point, while ignoring the rest, such as her being wrong about hearsay. She did this when I argued with her as well, including strawmanning furiously. It's obvious she doesn't actually read what people are saying, just what she wants to hear.

[Brit is cast as an American]
British People: Wow, Actor is really good at that.
[American cast as a Brit]
British People: Why can't they just use British actors to play Brits?

>musician on YT has a great new video out

YAY

>video was basically paid for in full by a known scumbag currently charged with enough crimes to sent him to jail for 50 years if convicted

Um

>musician says they don't care what the media says, they consider the scumbag a friend

UM

And now I feel all manly.

http://mcity.livejournal.com/342606.html

Idiot: The UK police would've been able to handle this situation without shooting someone. They would've called for backup. Their way is better.
Me: Aren't the UK police usually not armed? In fact, didn't you personally mention that they weren't armed?
Idiot: The US cops could've taken down the man without shooting him, according to their training.
Me: Leaving aside the fact that they were acting exactly like their training tells them to, you think the course of action that puts the US officers and the suspect at more risk than calling for backup is better?
Idiot: The dog could've made it.
Me: Prove it.
Idiot: The cops provoked the suspect into "making an aggressive move".
Me: Any judge would laugh at you.
Idiot: The suspect was not actually going to attack the officers, he was actually in a defensive position.
Me: A defensive position which required advancing on a policeman with weapon raised? Also, you just contradicted yourself.
Idiot: They should've tried to subdue him non-lethally.
Me: They did, it failed, and the suspect escalated the situation to deadly force.
Idiot: Those weren't non-lethal, those were gadgets. Gadgets which failed. So they shot him.
Me: They shot him because he tried to take a swing at one of them, employing deadly force.

And so on.

Currently, they're arguing that the suspect's attack on the cop was actually warranted, because there were five of them, and that the suspect was actually in "counter-stance", not aggressive stance. They are also trying to say that deadly force is irrelevant.