[psmith2.0]

They are, just a different way.

[drewprops]

Matthew Perry of Friends fame has DROWNED?

Whoa.

...

[psmith2.0]

My mom texted me about that an hour ago. I couldn't find a single report on it anywhere (CNN, Yahoo, TMZ, etc....all the places that typically are quick to carry such news). I told her "are you sure it's not another one of those "celebrity death hoax" things that spring up and get a bit of traction for 30-45 minutes?

Mom lives on Facebook, so she's reported the death of about 30 celebrities over the years that all turned out to be fake/hoaxes...Tom Hanks, Paul McCartney, Lady Gaga, etc. I couldn't help but think "here we go again...Chandler Bing didn't damn die, come on...".

But, an hour later, it's now at any and all major news/entertainment sites, so I guess it happened.

54. My age. Whoa, indeed.

[psmith2.0]

This is all playing out so weird, but just as I imagined/predicted 24 hours ago.

Celebrity/fame is bigger than everything, combined!

Millennials lost their spokesperson, after all.

[drewprops]

I know someone who worked on a show with him. The show went down temporarily when Matthew went to detox. I didn't know until today that he had been in detox 65 times, which seems an insane number. He really did live in a hell. Just terrible.


...

[psmith2.0]

I saw a headline today, a quote from him, that, at one point, he was taking 55 pills a day.

There were no drugs found at the scene, all the stories are saying. Yeah, no shit. They were all in him!

Even if he got clean, as he says, the damage done to his heart/system after years of that type of living has to be serious. Your body can only take so much. Consequences are a motherf…

People ask “how the hell do you drown in a jacuzzi, or bathtub (Whitney Houston).

If you’re straight/sober you don’t. But even if you are at the moment, if your heart finally says “fuck it, I’m done here”, and you collapse/slide down, it’s totally possible. You can drown in a mud puddle if positioned a certain way and unable to get up. Doesn’t take a pool, lake or ocean.

I figure, if no current drugs were present/actively involved, he might’ve had some sort of episode, probably brought about by the damage done, and he had no way of holding himself up, above water, and slipped down.

That’s happened to healthy, non-addicts. Hot-tubbing is a social thing. Have at least one person with you. I will not get in one, or a pool, by myself. If something were to happen - heart attack, stroke, seizure, cramp, etc. - and I slip under and can’t do anything about it, call the funeral home and make a reservation for ol’ Pauly. Solo around water is just a no-go for me. Too scary, and I won’t risk it.

Sad, if so. If he wasn’t alone - apparently he’d sent his assistant out on an errand and he was there by himself - someone there could’ve caught him and at least prevented the drowning. Kept his head above water so that wasn’t such an unrecoverable certainty.

They’re doing an autopsy and I imagine we’ll hear something a bit more concrete by the end of the week. It should be pretty obvious to the coroner, either way.

A sober, reasonably healthy 54-year-old male, with no heart attack or other medical emergency - isn’t gonna drown in a hot tub. You’d get out if you felt sick or weak, or keep your face above water. Just natural survival instinct. Something must’ve happened to override that, to where he was unconscious/unable. That’s how you drown n a hot tub. He wasn’t swimming laps in an Olympic pool, 15+ feet of water and seized up from cramps.

Ugh…I suspect/fear his past caught up to him. Unless you’re Keith Richards, and ain’t ever gonna die, your abused, compromised body might makes some decisions for you. Barring just some crazy, freak occurrence, I believe something along those lines happened and nobody was there to help him get out or keep his head above water.

Water scares me sometimes. The two times in my life where I’ve brushed up against death, we’re both water/drowning-related. Scary. And I wasn’t incapacitated and/or unaware, making it far worse. “Don’t panic”, my ass. That's all you do when you truly think “this is it; so this is how I die. Who’s gonna tell Mom? What’s her reaction gonna be? No, I can’t have that!”

If I ever have nightmares not about snakes, it’s me going down in water, trapped. Or surviving a plane crash and just floating on a suitcase in the middle of the ocean at night, bleeding and about to be something’s dinner. I’ll probably never go to Europe or Asia because the idea of flying over the Atlantic or Pacific just wrecks me. I’d be looking out the window the entire time, for islands, boats, etc. “if we went down here, there’s an island over there…”

[drewprops]

I know someone whose mother drowned in a hot tub while recuperating from cancer surgery. It was an accident and a terrible tragedy for the family. It really messed up the kids as adults and eventually fragmented the family. Terrible.

...

[psmith2.0]

I can imagine. Such a thing is so odd and “shouldn’t happen”.

My sister and her family bought one and put on their back patio, up against the house. I begged and pleaded with her to never get in/use it alone. To my knowledge, she (or nobody else) ever did. She’s got some health/medical issues and the thought of her out there by herself and something hit her and there was nobody there to keep her safe and above the water just haunted me.

“Okay, you big baby! I won’t! Jeez!”

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't use eye drops and don't know of anyone that does, but this FDA warning seems important enough to post here.

[psmith2.0]

Oh man. I don’t use, but I know folks who do. I cannot use eye drops, self-administered. I practically have to be held down/restrained by two people and a third do the dropping from the bottle. When trying to do myself, I’ll turn/move my head at the last second, every time. I’ve applied more Visine to my temples or forehead than anyone else ever has. It’s just a waste of product for me. Even when someone else does manage to put them in my eye, they don’t do anything for me. I’ve always considered it a sham/placebo product, just a little plastic jar of tap water. I hate ‘em! Just stuff I won’t waste money on.

[kscherer]

Fix one problem, create a new one.

The human body is an extraordinarily complex machine. It can be poked and prodded and will generally bounce back, but if you screw with its chemistry it can be easily broken beyond repair!

[psmith2.0]

There’s always one…

Former SNL writer gets slammed for mocking Natthew Perry’s death on, where else, X/Twitter. Nice editorializing in the headline, BTW If you think that only happens in minor, entertainment/showbiz-related pieces, you’re just not paying attention).

Social media was created to give the graceless, clueless and socially retarded among us somewhere to congregate and feel important or that they somehow “matter” as well. The amount of fake-edgy/ballsy types posting shit on InstaFaceTwitTokX (or AN) they wouldn’t dare utter in real life due to the tooth removal penalty is astounding.

I’ve never heard of this writer before, and I’m guessing that’s the point. Nobody has until he decided to be a tacky dick on X. But no such thing as bad PR/attention, right? Clicks, likes, comments, etc. override all else in these weird-ass times.

[kscherer]

Yeah, but he's winning. He gets to be famous for 15 minutes. I suppose it's better than shooting defenseless children.

The only answer to these types is to not answer.

And, why in the hell are we calling it "X formerly known as Twitter"? Is it a rap star? Is it Prince? Is it that washed-up, has-been basketball player? Is it Mac OS X with a kitty on the box?

[Ryan]

Holy shit.

Disaster averted at Glenwood Caverns after body, guns and bombs discovered

Garfield County law enforcement officials on Monday described an averted disaster after the body of a 20-year-old man was found alongside guns, ammunition and bombs in a bathroom at the Glenwood Caverns Adventure Park over the weekend. Medina was dressed in black tactical clothing and had a rifle, pistol, ammunition, pipe bombs and fake grenades with him, Vallario said.

Glenwood Caverns is a mining-themed amusement park with roller coasters and shit on top of a mountain. There's really nowhere to even run because it's straight down a cliff in most directions with one tiny access road—public access is via gondola. This could've been hundreds dead had the guy not killed himself instead.

[kscherer]

"We dodged a bullet!"

Dude killed himself without firing a shot. That's not "dodging a bullet". That's just a killer setting a better example for his kin.

Also, we need a new shooter slogan:

"Suicide First! All the cool mass-killers are doing it!"

[PB PM]

Originally Posted by kscherer "We dodged a bullet!" Dude killed himself without firing a shot. That's not "dodging a bullet". That's just a killer setting a better example for his kin. Also, we need a new shooter slogan: "Suicide First! All the cool mass-killers are doing it!"

While that’s a great idea, would they be more prone to plant explosives and such somewhere, cause the ‘If I’m going down, I should take others with me’ mentality is clearly a big part of this.

[kscherer]

Yeah, I know. There's no winning the war against tumbling mental health.

I just want these steps to be followed:

1) Kill self

2) Think of ways to kill others

[psmith2.0]

Originally Posted by Ryan Holy shit. Disaster averted at Glenwood Caverns after body, guns and bombs discovered Glenwood Caverns is a mining-themed amusement park with roller coasters and shit on top of a mountain. There's really nowhere to even run because it's straight down a cliff in most directions with one tiny access road—public access is via gondola. This could've been hundreds dead had the guy not killed himself instead.

Yikes!



I mean, damn, that's scary/crazy! Glad this one did everyone a favor, and carried out his plans in the correct order: a) blow your own head off first, b) everyone else, innocent strangers, lives.

I don't wanna start anything, or jinx anything, but I'm genuinely surprised that type of location hasn't been exploited more. Always tons of people, families, kids, nobody's armed or in a mindset of "fighting for their life" at an amusement park. I don't know how tough "security" is at such a place. Are they true hard-asses searching everything, or a bunch of part-time Barney Fifes and "anything goes".

It's a crying shame I even have to think about/consider such things. But there's always some nut with a grudge who'll carry out his nonsense in the most forgiving, easiest place possible. Always the ever-popular, ironic-as-hell "gun-free zones"...yes, gun-free to everyone except the deranged, murderous bonehead shooting up the joint (which is just how he would like it). As I said upthread, try this shit at a police station, gun show or an NRA rally. Or course they won't because they know exactly what waits them: death via acute, (and really fast) lead poisoning.

If a mass shooter ever did accidentally grow a pair and try their stuff at one of the three locations above, I'd almost have to give them an ounce of some weird, "well, you weren't a pussy/coward about it" props. "Most folks don't survive 688 bullet wounds, but you were strong in your convictions and at least one of you cretins went out like a 'man', for once, vs. shooting up grade-schoolers and unarmed, grocery-shopping housewives and college students".

Just the mere thought/fear of meeting resistance may be enough for many potential mass shooters. If they simply thought/believed their chosen target was a place where more than a handful of people - off duty cops, ex military, gun nuts like my dad, etc. - are gonna draw their weapons and give it back, they'd think twice. Even the ones that wanna die would rather do so by their own hand, via quick headshot vs. a random gut or torso shot from a stranger that might result in a longer, more painful death.

Everyone, even mass shooters, wants their jobs to be easy and straightforward. Proudly announcing/branding certain locations as "gun free zones" doesn't help anyone (makes a lot of certain types feeeeeeel better about themselves, I suppose). But it's throwing a big steak into the zoo's lion enclosure. It's saying "come here and do your evil work!". I think such stuff should be left unsaid/secret. Let these idiots wonder or worry, or change their minds completely. It's the simplest, cheapest thing that might make a difference. It doesn't trample on any rights, real or imagined, it doesn't even involve a discussion of guns and guns ownership. All it does is remove the certainty of an easy go of things from the bad guy's end.

It's certainly quicker, cheaper and easier than "banning" anything, or arguing endlessly about the same shit, year-in, year-out. Which doesn't seem to have gotten us anywhere.

"Man, I was really hoping to shoot up this daycare/farmer's market this afternoon, but how do I know the parents, staff, and farmers aren't packing?"

You don't, tool. That's the point. How badly do you really wanna find out? That bit of doubt/hesitation/reassessment may be all that's needed to save a few dozen lives? cv cv That's a tool the good guys/innocents should always have in their back pocket, working for them. Murderers and criminals should never have the strategic/informational upper-hand in these scenarios (knowing what places are guaranteed "easy pickings"/no resistance, etc.). Even if I was the biggest gun-fearing, anti-gun zealot in the solar system, I would never announce/post my church, place of business, bar, restaurant, etc. as a "gun-free zone"...that's just ringing the dinner bell for psychos with bad ideas. Let the pricks wonder/worry a little, maybe re-think their afternoon?

If I was head of anything and had any say-so/power, the one thing I'd do is immediately take down/remove any and all "gun-free zone" signage anywhere it's posted (who, exactly, is it for?). That's not the sort of thing, living in today's warped-ass culture, I'd feel comfortable announcing. Wouldn't those places typically be targeted first, before others not making such a claim?

[psmith2.0]

The ongoing Matthew Perry death coverage continues to astound me.

If you landed here today from Venus and just glanced at the news (especially the Internet outlets like Yahoo and TMZ), you wouldn't be blamed for thinking Mr. Perry was an important king, president or other world leader.

He was one of six main cast members of a sitcom that ended nearly 20 years ago, just to try and put a little perspective on it.



Not slamming on the guy at all, but I wonder when, or if, it'll ever end? I really don't recall, but did people get this way when Screech died a few years back?

It's just spun so far out, from certain outlets/individuals.

I wasn't joking the other day when I said "millennials have lost their spokesperson". I was among a group of them this past weekend for a while and the literal crying/caterwauling from a few of them was the hardest I've cringed in years. "Just stare at your shoes and sip your drink, Paul...don't say a WORD!". So I did.

People, it's time to try and get a grip.

Yahoo managed the Daily Double a few days ago by managing to post an article about how Prince Harry (their other favorite topic/person) said he saw himself in Chandler Bing, and that he was taking the news a little hard or whatever. I had to get off the Internet for the rest of the day.

We've reached the point now where Yahoo, TMZ and others are posting articles about people who've simply once stood in the same room as Matthew Perry, for their "insight" (none) and take on things.

But, hey...congrats for working in the Harry angle. That took some doing!

PS - None of the above is about Matthew Perry. He's dead. I have no beef with him, and none of this is a slam on him dying. It's a slam on how some people - and many "news" outlets - have absolutely lost their minds in the past 4-5 days over it.

Some day, hopefully way down the road, many years from now, Courteney Cox, Jennifer Aniston and David Schwimmer are all gonna go to that hipster coffee house in the sky. Is this how we're gonna do then? Is this the template?

[turtle]

IIRC, the gun free zone thing was back when a DA actually prosecuted criminals and it was to increase the criminal penalties for actions in those areas. Of course, it just created soft targets that are relatively unable to defend themselves at all now. The DAs are letting hardened criminals go free and those criminals don't care about signs and the lack of teeth behind them anyway.

I could go into way more on this, but this left leaning forum isn't open to the concept that taking away personal firearms is actually a bad thing. Holding people accountable is the proper solution to any crime, regardless of skin tone or religious belief.

An amusement park, bar or bowling alley are just small examples of soft targets being exploited by those who mean to do harm. Compare this to a larger scale country where personally owned firearms are severely limited and look what happens... thousands of innocent people killed or injured by invaders who don't care about firearms bans.

[kscherer]

People are going to kill people no matter what. Take away the guns and I guarantee they'll start uses axes, pitchforks, swords, knives, or whatever else they can get their hands on. And it's going to be a lot messier! Hatred will not be quelled by laws.

But, something has to change. I don't quite know what that is, but it has to change. Eliminating all firearms gives dictator-types like Trump and Clinton ALL power, and I don't want them having it. Yet, doing nothing gives mentally ill criminals ALL power, and I don't want them having it, either.

Where does change start? Here in Idaho we have open-carry/concealed-carry with no permitting, registration, or training required. And, even as a 2nd-Amendment advocate, I'm not too sure I like that. Knowing that I can carry doesn't mean I should, and carrying because you can is the worst reason to carry. It's a bad mindset. Even with the "freedum" I have, I absolutely refuse to carry my sidearm in public* because I don't want the "what-if" responsibility. There are too many situations where hot-headed confrontations lead to hot-headed outcomes and I would rather not place myself in that situation. So, in my case at least, "change" comes at my own design. I don't ever want to be "that guy". For Idaho (at least) I would like to see a return to permitting/licensing for public-carry of any type (we used to have this for concealed carry), with a strong privacy clause that protects liberty, and an even stronger punishment for those caught breaking the law. But, that would require two things: 1) For criminals to obey the law, and 2) For "patriots" to obey the law. Neither is going to, so confrontations are still going to erupt.

The criminals will never yield their power, and there are too many guns in this country to get rid of them all, so criminals will always have them.

The "Patriots" will never yield their power, and there are too many guns in this country to get rid of them all, so "Patriots" will always have them.

To get rid of guns in the U.S., a civil war will be required, and that will result in many millions dead in order to save the lives of a few thousand, and that's just dumb!

* On a recent overnighter with my kid, I decided not to take it, and I'm glad I didn't. You see, I have a very strong sense of anxiety with dogs. We were hiking in an area where dogs are required by law (signs, duh!) to be leashed and under their owner's control. Along come two assholes with an off-leash dog that ran right up to me and jumped on me. My reaction is always the same: The dog got a knee to the chest and I barked at the owners. Fortunately, they went on their merry way and next we saw them the dog was leashed. However, they could have gone postal on me, and I hate to think what that looks like if one of us is packing. And I would have been well within my right to have shot the dog. So, for sanity's sake, I'm really glad that gun wasn't with me. And to support Turtle's argument above, some people don't care about signs, no matter what the sign says!

[chucker]

Originally Posted by psmith2.0 The ongoing Matthew Perry death coverage continues to astound me.

I'm a bit baffled by it as well.

[kscherer]

Originally Posted by chucker I'm a bit baffled by it as well.

The media tends to fixate on popular personalities. That English monarchy business is a great example.

Also, something diabolical is likely taking place behind the scenes that the media does not want to report on, and this presents a convenient (and somewhat "coincidental") cover story.

[psmith2.0]

Yeah. The whole “banning” and “more laws” approach just strikes me as empty, piss-up-a-rope, “for show” wishful thinking. Murder and gun crimes are already illegal. What magic new laws are shitheads, criminals and psychos going to suddenly start obeying and stop hurting others?

And if we’ve learned anything from prohibition or the “war on drugs”, all “banning” does is make gazillionaires out of criminal groups who aren’t going to follow any laws anyway. Gun-running/smuggling will become the new bathtub gin or fentanyl.

All handled/ran by shady hard-case men and their soldiers/minions who’ll do whatever it takes for profits. And people like me, who obey laws, won’t be dealing with them to acquire one illegally anyway. But the shitheads, criminals and psychos? They’ll line up around the block to get their hands on illegal, black-market guns. And if the appearance/names of some weapons scare the pants-wetters now, imagine a lawless industry where weapons that would Rambo swallow hard/blush are manufactured and sold from the trunks of cars and beds of pickups all over the country, breaking every (toothless) law in existence. If you wanna create a little shadow industry/network of illegal gun makers/vendors, catering to gangs, wingnuts, psychos, the unbalanced, troublemakers, etc., by all means “ban” everything you don’t like. Good luck with that. And be careful what you wish for, because it won’t solve/fix one damn thing. It just won’t.

Coming down like a ton of bricks on people who do wrong, bad things is more realistic and practical. The “laws” are already there. Enforce them like you mean it and see what happens.

Passing “new laws” that the very people causing all the trouble aren't going to follow anyway is just a silly waste of paper and ink Enforcing what’s already there and throwing some deserving folks into the Grey Bar Motel seems like a better use of brainpower and energy. We’ve hit this point in the culture where, apparently, jail/prison is seen as a bad thing, or unthinkable. No, the problem is, not enough people are in it, who should be. You knock over a liquor store or do a car-jacking using a gun? Your punk ass goes to the joint for a long time. No deals, no pleas, no early release or all the other stuff that goes on.

“Jails are overcrowded!”

I don’t give a shit. Good! Then build more, I don’t care. If that’s what keeps the cretins and takers out of my orbit, do what needs doing. I’m not supposed to be looking over my shoulder or sizing everyone up I see walk into a store or restaurant. I should feel that everyone snagged on a lower, lesser crime is already locked up and serving time. The concept of “repeat offenders” (like multiple perma-bans) shouldn’t be a phrase or concept that even exists. If someone is known, proven trouble, with loads of prior offenses and blown second chances, you remove them to where the rest of us don’t have to deal with them. Internet, society, school, etc. Wherever. Shitheads aren’t ever supposed to run things, or set the pace/tone.

[Anonymous Coward]

"I could go into way more on this, but this left leaning forum isn't open to the concept that taking away personal firearms is actually a bad thing."

Left leaning forum???? Well, if that's what you think is the tone here, don't ever go to the Ars Technica forums. Apparently technically oriented people (or they used to be) only see things in black-and-white (oh, I'm sorry, opaque and transparent). I don't remember any recent firearms discussions to justify that, but seeing how irresponsible many people are as the population gets bigger and the general knowledge level is drifting toward favoring that of the most vocal, most popular and most edgy/trendy, I don't see how the concept of regulating firearms is bad.

I think we are smart enough to allow flexibility in the case that armed invaders ever became possibility.

And why does firearms regulation always have to mean taking away personal firearms. Because logical, smart, legal minded people (or so they think) claim that a move in one direction or another is (sorry, I know the term or phrase is common, I just can't think of it in my old age) a creep that will snowball to one extreme or the other. Why does a "right to bear arms" mean that the founding fathers intended that there be no restrictions?

Even the military has policies that might seem foreign to the concept of bearing arms. In my Navy experience, we were never allowed to load weapons or chamber a round, unless ordered or if the situation demanded it. Not on a watch requiring arms on a submarine or surface ship (support ship, not a warship), not while on high alert transiting the Suez Canal during the Gulf Wars. What about average people or law enforcement? I would guess the concept of not loading a weapon if you are carrying it isn't even a consideration.

[turtle]

Originally Posted by Anonymous Coward "I could go into way more on this, but this left leaning forum isn't open to the concept that taking away personal firearms is actually a bad thing." Left leaning forum???? Well, if that's what you think is the tone here, don't ever go to the Ars Technica forums. Apparently technically oriented people (or they used to be) only see things in black-and-white (oh, I'm sorry, opaque and transparent). I don't remember any recent firearms discussions to justify that, but seeing how irresponsible many people are as the population gets bigger and the general knowledge level is drifting toward favoring that of the most vocal, most popular and most edgy/trendy, I don't see how the concept of regulating firearms is bad. I think we are smart enough to allow flexibility in the case that armed invaders ever became possibility. And why does firearms regulation always have to mean taking away personal firearms. Because logical, smart, legal minded people (or so they think) claim that a move in one direction or another is (sorry, I know the term or phrase is common, I just can't think of it in my old age) a creep that will snowball to one extreme or the other. Why does a "right to bear arms" mean that the founding fathers intended that there be no restrictions? Even the military has policies that might seem foreign to the concept of bearing arms. In my Navy experience, we were never allowed to load weapons or chamber a round, unless ordered or if the situation demanded it. Not on a watch requiring arms on a submarine or surface ship (support ship, not a warship), not while on high alert transiting the Suez Canal during the Gulf Wars. What about average people or law enforcement? I would guess the concept of not loading a weapon if you are carrying it isn't even a consideration.

Relax, I don't think anyone would argue that this is a more liberal minded forum. I didn't peg any one person as being "leftist" or extreme in here. Those of us who post here regularly know each others' stance on most/many things.

That being said, I would very much agree that even if we disagree on here we still have civil talking points. We can even walk away and disagree with each other. That is a far cry different than most.

[turtle]

Originally Posted by psmith2.0 Yeah. The whole “banning” and “more laws” approach just strikes me as empty, piss-up-a-rope, “for show” wishful thinking. Murder and gun crimes are already illegal. What magic new laws are shitheads, criminals and psychos going to suddenly start obeying and stop hurting others? And if we’ve learned anything from prohibition or the “war on drugs”, all “banning” does is make gazillionaires out of criminal groups who aren’t going to follow any laws anyway. Gun-running/smuggling will become the new bathtub gin or fentanyl. All handled/ran by shady hard-case men and their soldiers/minions who’ll do whatever it takes for profits. And people like me, who obey laws, won’t be dealing with them to acquire one illegally anyway. But the shitheads, criminals and psychos? They’ll line up around the block to get their hands on illegal, black-market guns. And if the appearance/names of some weapons scare the pants-wetters now, imagine a lawless industry where weapons that would Rambo swallow hard/blush are manufactured and sold from the trunks of cars and beds of pickups all over the country, breaking every (toothless) law in existence. If you wanna create a little shadow industry/network of illegal gun makers/vendors, catering to gangs, wingnuts, psychos, the unbalanced, troublemakers, etc., by all means “ban” everything you don’t like. Good luck with that. And be careful what you wish for, because it won’t solve/fix one damn thing. It just won’t. Coming down like a ton of bricks on people who do wrong, bad things is more realistic and practical. The “laws” are already there. Enforce them like you mean it and see what happens. Passing “new laws” that the very people causing all the trouble aren't going to follow anyway is just a silly waste of paper and ink Enforcing what’s already there and throwing some deserving folks into the Grey Bar Motel seems like a better use of brainpower and energy. We’ve hit this point in the culture where, apparently, jail/prison is seen as a bad thing, or unthinkable. No, the problem is, not enough people are in it, who should be. You knock over a liquor store or do a car-jacking using a gun? Your punk ass goes to the joint for a long time. No deals, no pleas, no early release or all the other stuff that goes on. “Jails are overcrowded!” I don’t give a shit. Good! Then build more, I don’t care. If that’s what keeps the cretins and takers out of my orbit, do what needs doing. I’m not supposed to be looking over my shoulder or sizing everyone up I see walk into a store or restaurant. I should feel that everyone snagged on a lower, lesser crime is already locked up and serving time. The concept of “repeat offenders” (like multiple perma-bans) shouldn’t be a phrase or concept that even exists. If someone is known, proven trouble, with loads of prior offenses and blown second chances, you remove them to where the rest of us don’t have to deal with them. Internet, society, school, etc. Wherever. Shitheads aren’t ever supposed to run things, or set the pace/tone.

This is pretty much were I am with this. Remember the "three strikes" era of the '90s when it was long term prison for not getting the message that crime is bad? Repeat offenders happened less and less. Sure there were those who didn't care but it seemed to make a difference. What are we are now? 3 million strikes? Unlimited strikes? Relevant scene on YT. Ends are 7:50.

When we were all children we didn't do wrong because our parents ensured we felt consequences for our choices. Our teachers and other adult leaders in our lives reenforced rules and boundaries. Where are those now? For a myriad of reasons we left that concept and the TV/social media raised the kids of today. Follow that up with no real consequences and we have the situation we are in now.

[PB PM]

Originally Posted by turtle When we were all children we didn't do wrong because our parents ensured we felt consequences for our choices. Our teachers and other adult leaders in our lives reenforced rules and boundaries. Where are those now? For a myriad of reasons we left that concept and the TV/social media raised the kids of today. Follow that up with no real consequences and we have the situation we are in now.

But, but, but telling people there are consequences for their actions might damage their poor little fragile mental states. I watch my sister and all the new age stuff they are raising their kids by, it's no wonder they think they are the kings and queens of the universe. I admit though some of it is better, but some of it is just downright silly.

Blame the psychiatrists, blame politicians, blame parents, blame teachers, cause hey we have to blame someone else right? Heave forbid we blame ourselves for how we've let the world get.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Relax, I don't think anyone would argue that this is a more liberal minded forum."

If this is "leftist" or liberal, I don't want to have anything to do with centrist or right. For a couple of months a few years ago, I used to look at the Fox News comments just to be amazed at the things people would write. If that is Fox is considered centrist or right, I have serious concerns about the sanity of the most vocal members of U.S. citizenry.

By the way, I am only registered for comments at this website (plus unused profiles at MacNN and Apple-whatever-the-predecessor-of-this-site-was). I don't think I could handle anywhere else. And if you didn't realize it, my criticisms of the membership of a certain technologically oriented forum was toward the Ars Technica forum.

[drewprops]

I beseech you to make Aulus Rustius a true aedile, worthy of the state!


...