Skip to main content

View Diary: Greedy, Lazy Firefighters Caught on Tape Wasting Tax Money (199 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  So your objection is semantic (0+ / 0-)
    Well, that's the magic of language - when enough people use a term incorrectly, that incorrect usage becomes correct later on because the definition changes to match via the miracle of common usage.
    I mentioned a number of things above that indicate the appropriateness of the language within context.

    It seems that you're not interested in any of that, no follow-up questions, only an explanation of the patently obvious.  That's unfortunate, I think it's definitely a major problem, and the source of a lot of hostility directed at civilians by first responders IMO.

    Ultimately, rather than having the public rethink their grossly inaccurate concept of the world first responders live in, so we could come together societally, you'd rather have us switch to different wording that makes you feel more comfortable while alienating us even more.

    First responders live in a world much more akin to that of military personnel than civilians, with no transparency and very little cultural interchange.  And yet every civilian feels perfectly qualified to opine on every aspect of our operation, while never having to contemplate the reality of it.  Worse yet, we always, always dance to your tune, whether you understand it or not.

    •  Thank you for this diary. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mikeconwell, Xavier Onassis EMTP

      I didn't realize that firefighters or EMT's lived in a world more like the military, though I had an inkling the police did.

      Some questions, if I may.

      Should first responders live in a more civilian world? By that I mean wouldn't more transparency and community interaction be better? And if so, what are your ideas to bring that about without interfering with the ability of first responders to do their jobs?

      I'm disturbed by the thought of first responders not having First Amendment rights. I'm disturbed by actual military not having them either, but that is another discussion...

      •  Thanks for asking (0+ / 0-)

        I do feel that the paramilitary structure of the organizations is appropriate.  It lends itself very well to the goals and missions of public safety.  The problems that it creates could be well handled by a different sort of citizen interaction.

        And yes, I think it would be much better if we could have more integration within the overall population.  That would be the greatest thing ever.  (See http://medic343.wordpress.com/...) There are three things preventing this, IMO:  

        (1) the desire of our government to avoid becoming actually accountable to the citizens, and the substantial efforts that have been made to that end;

        (2) cultural conditioning within the public safety community and history of poor relations with civilians; and

        (3) civilian attitudes generally, and specifically towards first responders.

        The easiest and most effective solution (while not actually so easy) would be to shift (3).  

        Even here on DK, look through this diary and see that people don't know that we have limited rights, or how that plays out; they feel that ultimately they're the ones who must decide the parameters of our milieu, without any specialized knowledge or experience, or our consent; an activist who brings up significant cultural issues is "carping"; our jargon is "incorrect" and "bullshit," according to people who've never even visited our world.  

        The scars we all carry, that kill us prematurely in droves, have zero meaning to civilians.  They don't respect it, they don't defer to it, they don't give a hairy rat's ass about it.  They just want what they want and they don't care what it costs us to provide it, like children.  That may be an unpopular truth, and one that's seldom spoken; however I guarantee you it's prevalent in our community.  I don't think rage is too strong a word.

        Those ideas and attitudes come from the people who believe they respect and support us!  Check out the comments  on the website linked in the diary to find out how the general population really feels.  It's not pretty.  Yet they all claim to respect us, go figure.

        Few people here wants to hear how people like The Young Turks create deep and lasting divisions between the two communities.  They just want us to keep shutting up, which has always been the stock weapon in Item (1) above.  And that's among "friendlies."

        If citizens could generally start to consider that they've been truly manipulated and kept in the dark, and cultivate the habit of listening to first responders and supporting, rather than attacking, their ideas, we could resolve Item (2) much quicker.

        My focus has been free speech activism.  I'm involved with two protected message boards for police, one at www.pbsotalk.com and another at www.rentontalk.com.  We need widespread civilian support for public safety whistleblowers.

        We need our progressive media personnel to pull their heads out of their asses and get on board with advancing the progressive agenda among public safety personnel.

        We need citizens to recognize that they don't actually know what goes on in the lives of first responders.  More importantly, we need them to muster the courage to embrace the ugliest parts of our society, rather than banish us to drown in them.

        Thanks for listening.

    •  Of you want sympathy, then stop straw manning. (0+ / 0-)

      You won't get any sympathy from me when you pull bullshit like this quote here:

      Ultimately, rather than having the public rethink their grossly inaccurate concept of the world first responders live in, so we could come together societally, you'd rather have us switch to different wording that makes you feel more comfortable while alienating us even more.
      Wow this imaginary Steve Mading that exists only in your head sounds like an ass.  I'm glad I'm not him.  Stop pretending to know my motivations when you don't.

      I was on your side on this originally, but you got so peeved about my disagreement with your terminology that you then decided to pretend that I was somehow unwilling to see fire departments treated better, and pretended I took a position I didn't.  You want better treatment?  Here's a clue - don't blatantly lie about other people's motivations then.  It tends to put them off from you.

      There's no point in addressing any of the things you said until you take back that bullshit claim.  Until you do that I have no reason to believe you are trying to be honest.

      •  I don't know which (0+ / 0-)

        is stranger, the idea that I'm looking for your "sympathy" or your continued use of the word "bullshit" to describe my take on a world which, again, you know nothing about.  That's not a dig, just a reality.  It's a culture that has been carefully hidden from your view.

        You insisted that we stop using the "inaccurate" and "bullshit" term "civilian," because you dislike it semantically and believe it leads to violence against Occupiers.  

        I disagreed on factual grounds that you didn't ask me to elucidate, giving me the impression that you don't actually care to invest your own efforts in solving the problem.  

        You just want us to switch to your preferred jargon -- though it bears no relevance to the world we live in, and would serve IMO to alienate us further.  But what the fuck, at least you'd be more comfortable, and in the end isn't that the most important thing?  

        Did you have any thoughts about my position on transparency, and how we might be able to mediate between the two communities?

        If you don't want to consider my position unless I'm substantially more polite to you than you are to me, (i.e., I'm not calling your opinions "bullshit" repeatedly or ignoring your facts, if you ever proffer any) that's your option.  Be advised, though, that this is not some favor you graciously bestow upon me.  If you want to truly change these longstanding systems, you might need to try a new approach, like entertaining insider insight as though it might not be "bullshit."  

        Or don't.  Whatever.

        •  As I stated before (0+ / 0-)

          there's no point in arguing with someone who makes up facts about my motivations out of thin air without the slightest hint of shame for doing it.

          The fact that on top of that lying you also are willing to pretend this practice is "polite" doesn't make it any better.  Don't worry thought, I won't allow your behavior here to lessen my relatively high opinion of firefighters in general just because I encountered one individual who acted like an asshole here.

          •  Wow (0+ / 0-)

            I'm acting like an asshole?  LOL

            who makes up facts about my motivations out of thin air
            You said it was a linguistic thing about the meaning of the word having changed.  You also said it caused increased violence against Occupiers.  Was that wrong?  Was there something else, some cold, hard fact that I missed?  Please explain.

            And by all means, let me know if you ever want to hear what my actual argument is.  You started out by calling my opinion bullshit, now you feel victimized.

            •  The place where you lied (0+ / 0-)

              is already highlighted in my earlier post.]  You continue to show proof you don't want to take back your claim that I am motivated to make you alienated.  Knocking it off with the bullshit claims about my motivations is a precondition for me bothering to listen yo you.

              •  So it's not my POV, (0+ / 0-)

                it's a lie?

                You continue to show proof you don't want to take back your claim that I am motivated to make you alienated.  
                What you want -- which you made abundantly clear -- would have the net effect of alienating first responders.  I told you that.  You didn't ask me to explain, used the word bullshit again, and now are calling me a liar.

                Kinda almost like you're trolling me.

                •  Can you understand the difference (0+ / 0-)

                  between claiming someone's action will have an effect they don't realize versus claiming someone's action is because they deliberately intended that effect?

                  You didn't just say I would accidentally alienate first responders (which has no basis in reality, but fine you believe it).  You claimed it was something I WANTED to do.  You know - as in "on purpose".  As if that was my intent.  That's why you've been the asshole here.  The fact that you are blind to this isn't my fault.

                  Now if you want to explain why you think my wanting to call firefighters civilians will have the accidental effect of alienating them, fine.  But as long as you call it an accidental effect and stop lying about my motivations.

                  Any my high opinion of firefighters isn't diminished that much by just you.  I still plan to vote for one for Lt. Governor in Wisconsin soon despite the fact that if your attitude was widespread my opinion of them would diminish.  But I have to keep reminding myself that you're not every firefighter, and so that's the only reason you're not affecting that.  Now, if I was being an asshole, I'd say you were trying to get me to dislike firefighters because that's what you wanted rather than it being a possible unintended consequence of what you're doing.  But I'm not being the sort of asshole you are, so I won't try to pretend an unintended consequence that I see that you don't is actually your deliberate intent.

                  Can you understand the basic fucking difference between "the thing you are doing has unintended effect X" versus "you are doing it because you want to do X"?  So far, you haven't demonstrated the ability to tell the difference.

                  It's one of the most infuriating things about political rhetoric.  Party A wants to do X.  Party B claims X leads to some detrimental effect Y while party A doesn't.  Party B pretends party A agrees with them that X leads to Y when they scream "Party A wants Y to happen!"  It's blatantly dishonest.

                  •  Holy bejeebers (0+ / 0-)

                    that was a really long way to get to "I didn't realize it would have that effect."

                    Truth be told, I don't give a shit what you think or who you vote for.

                    Have a great life.

                    •  So, no then. (0+ / 0-)

                      You're not interested if you have to take back the insultingly false thing you said.  Got it.

                      •  The reason (0+ / 0-)

                        I'm not interested in discussing it with you, is because we want to discuss two different things.

                        You're not interested if you have to take back the insultingly false thing you said.  Got it.
                        You want to discuss your butt-hurt, and the perceived assault on your self-image.

                        I don't give a fuck about that.  I only give a fuck about the fact that our social safety net is reaching critical fail, and people who deal with that shit in real life every day are fucking dying.

                        Grow up, asshole.

          •  Incidentally (0+ / 0-)
            Don't worry thought, I won't allow your behavior here to lessen my relatively high opinion of firefighters in general just because I encountered one individual who acted like an asshole here.
            Setting aside the bizarre idea that your approval is extremely important in the real world -- do you honestly believe that the views I've stated are an anomaly?  Like if you took this thread to a firefighter who was free to speak (i.e., like out of town on vacation and wearing a mask) that s/he would take your side in this argument?

            Hi. fuckin. larious.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site