The strangest thing about rabbits is how they can use cognitive hacks to shut off their amygdalae in the face of overly stressful stimuli, to protect themselves from mental meltdown. Here, a cop apparently shoots an unarmed man, accidently.
A rookie New York City police officer shot and killed an unarmed 28-year-old man in a darkened stairwell in Brooklyn late Thursday night, according to the police.
Police Commissioner William J. Bratton said that the victim, Akai Gurley, was “a total innocent” and called the shooting “an unfortunate accident.”
He was not engaged in any activity other than trying to walk down the stairs, Mr. Bratton said
You would think cops walking around with guns, shooting people accidently would be a bad thing. It is not like this is the first instance of the NYPD shooting innocent people.
Two police officers opened fired on a man who was acting erratically and dodging cars on a busy Manhattan street Saturday night, wounding two bystanders and sending people running for cover, authorities said… The officers’ shots missed him, and he was eventually brought down by a stun gun…
In August 2012, nine people were injured from bullets fired by police in a confrontation with a gunman near the Empire State Building. They were hit by stray bullets, ricochets and fragments, suffering non-life-threatening gunshot and graze wounds. Officials at the time defended the officers’ decision to fire on a street crowded with people.
Why no irrational freak out on the left?
Picture the emotional response this would produce, if it was a conservative, Christian, Republican, NRA member who was walking around with a gun, who did this to save his own life when attacked, and who you knew would never do it again. Picture the histrionics over Travon. Picture the histrionics if this were even less serious, such as the case of a cop shooting a violent robber who deserved to be shot, such as Michael Brown.
Here, an unarmed man just like the rabbit, was shot for no reason. Yet the left is not only silent, it would view you as irrational if you raised it. Picture how many women and children were gassed and burned to death at Waco for even less reason, yet nary a peep from the left, as if it didn’t matter at all. Understand how bizarrely calm rabbits would be if Stalin assumed power, and began killing millions, and filling the mass graves. That is exactly how it has played out for centuries.
It is almost as if rabbits have reached a point where if a stimulus is real and serious, and threatens to trigger their amygdala too severely, they hit their cognitive defense buttons, and deny that anything at all has happened, or that it matters. Instead they reserve their emotional angst for those less serious stimuli where they can wade in, unafraid, and exercise their emotional muscles with typical leftist histrionics, in the controlled environment of pretend outrage at make-believe wrongs. This mass-murderer was shot, and he didn’t have to be!
But let Stalin begin to flex his murderous muscle, and all you will get is silence and glassy-eye’d obliviousness.
The biggest thing to grasp with narcissists is that the normal rules, which you would use when dealing with a reasonable person such as yourself, do not apply. Up is down, black is white, the minor stimuli is a freak out, the major stimuli must be ignored, what could solve the problem is bad, what caused the problem isn’t a problem, and being nice is the best way to make an enemy.
I was thinking of getting one of those I Am Officer Wilson shirts and adding something to it. What do you think would trigger rabbits the most if added to it?
1. Look elsewhere for unarmed white liberals to attack.
2. Look elsewhere for unarmed white liberals who believe in equality to attack.
3. Look elsewhere for unarmed white liberals who believe they are equal to you to attack
4. Find easier prey in the unarmed white liberal.
5. Pick an easier target like an unarmed white liberal.
6. Pick an easier target like an unarmed white liberal that is afraid to talk about black on Asian/White crime.
Of course this will be to annoy white liberals as my own experiments have shown the extent of black functional illiteracy.
I don’t understand, why are they not flipping out over this? Are you saying its not because they hate the police, but because they want to be upset about things that only don’t matter.
Trayvon probably deserved to get shot, so it’s not important, therefore they can safely be outraged about it since the shooting doesn’t affect cowards like them
The unarmed man on the stairwell absolutely does affect them so they cannot handle thinking about it and ignore it completely.
But this is not born out. About 10 years ago, a man in NYC was shot 15 times by police because he turned around from his mailbox when they called him to surrender and they thought the envelope in his hand was a gun. Everyone flipped out.
Ahh, there was some legitimate cause for the officers to open fire. They made an honest mistake. This was a tragedy, not an atrocity, and so it doesn’t overly stimulate the mind of the narcissist coward. Is that it?
It seems to me that there has to be an element to the politicized issue that says to the liberal brain, “This is not a real danger to me.” If there is a real danger, it is too stimulating, and the amygdala sensations will dissuade contemplating it, let alone discussing or promoting it. This little invalidating detail, which invalidates the threatening nature of the concept, is what narcissists will often construct, de novo in their mind, as a protective mechanism.
In the case of Amadou Diallo, he was a poorer black guy, so the leftist could contemplate it, because he was different from them. What happened to him wouldn’t happen to, say, Alec Baldwin – there was an invalidating aspect. Had he been middle-class white, or upper middle-class white, and everything went exactly the same, it would have been too amygdala stimulating. As a result, everything would have gone the same, the cops would have been disciplined and ultimately left the force, the legal path would have looked identical, but white liberals would not have wanted to talk about it, so it would have been kept quiet, and never mentioned again. It would produce, “Yeah, they killed Alec Baldwin, but that was an accident, and it is over now, so lets not talk about it.”
Diallo was fun to protest over, Stalin hauling off the useful-idiot rabbits to the gulags for torture and execution, not so much, and that is reflected in the leftist-directed national discourse, which history has shown, will have plenty of play-acted outrage for one, and nary a word about the other.
Notice, the rabbit’s motivators are different from the grassroots blacks, who are not true rabbits psychologically. Black Americans have a strong strain of in-group loyalty that runs through their psyche, and a combativeness which rabbits lack. Obviously they have the same problem we do with leaders being corrupted, and where we’ve dumped immense free resources like welfare we have altered reproductive strategy. But the average-Joe Black American is not a rabbit – they lack the innate out-group loyalty, the fear of conflict with out-groups, the detachment with reality produced by the fear of it, and they have too much loyalty to in-groups. Black Americans will not align with terrorists, will not curry favor with outsiders by burning their own, and will not cower as a group. I’m convinced they could be turned to nationalistic, American, NRA members, who hate rabbits, with very little prodding.
They are just goaded on against us by the rabbits now, in the hopes they will fight with white K’s while the rabbits hide.
One of the main themes I want to throw around though, is that leftist rabbits are vastly different from us, and are motivated my currents of emotion which do not exist in our minds. I think this discomfort with the “real” is one of them. And I think understanding that like the narcissist, their brains have intellectual/cognitive no-go zones produced by hardware insufficiencies can be useful in dealing with them and molding rhetoric.
And just to add another perspective, which is more likely to happen to a rabbit – encounter a cop on a stairway, or be accidently chased by four elite street crime cops into a vestibule and mistaken for a shooter as they pull their wallet? The event needs an element of distance, or unlikeliness to happen to a rabbit, to allow it to be focused on. Thus the robber who is shot is more stimulating than the innocent guy who was shot, the more unusual mistake is more important than the more common mistake. They want the outcry, but not the full brunt of a reality which requires it.
It is a nuance I see in them, similar to making the argument, “do you want to associate your argument with this guy who everyone will attack?” that I think should be better understood, because it is in part, what drives their dialog, and their decision to feed something into the echo chamber, or not.
Suppose the Ferguson police shot dead, tonight, one hundred black rioters and a dozen white “activists”, and promised to do it again tomorrow night if the riots continue. Would the rabbits be outraged by this, or would they go scurrying back into their burrows?