The General Convo: We're Cosmic Now

Yeah. I mean, I'm not really surprised if the gay redneck that loves guns is a damn racist. I was actually surprised that he didn't have any reaction to Shaq when he came around (but his mention of the N word was edited out). 

Yeah, the first two episodes was talking about the tigers condition in captivity. And I'll be honest, I don't have any strong opinions that these animals can be tame and converse with the Zoo. But. All these characters are practically trying to outdick each other in a dick measuring contest about these cats (am I the only one who think that the BIG ASS cat that as big as a fucking house just... seems weird? I mean, he eats like a damn king, but fuck, that's a big ass cat), and have an social media war over it.

Carole accusing Joe of putting in cages. Puts them in cases themselves. Joe trying to exclaim that everything is all good and whatnot, but I don't know... I felt there's something far more deeper than that... so I guess I need to see episode 3 and more for that shit.

And the fucking """"""doctor""""" and his cult of women? Dafaq??? And the ex-con drug dealer. XD
I'm sure the film is mostly biased against all of them, but I'm almost positive Doc Antle is a sociipath or a bald Charles Manson type creep considering his weird harem of women and the fact his daughter didn't refer to him as her dad. I'm pretty sure she just disowned him herself (I wasn't paying much attention visually since I had it open as a separate tab while I did other stuff)

The only places these poor tigers should be living in should be sanctuaries certified by the AZA. The Zoo in OKC has proper and adequate space for the lions and cougars to roam around and you view them behind glass (it's most bragged about feature is its Elephant sanctuary type enclosure that is pretty much several acres of free roam space). I would not stick my fingers through the chickenwire cages Joe has for the chimpanzees, at least zoos have you behind glass lol.

I've been to 1 or 2 backyard type zoos before that inevitably closed due to improper permits to be hosting these exotic animals in petting zoos. Located on the outskirts of town in the middle of nowhere specifically to avoid any cops or animal rights people sniffing them out. They don't have access or the finances to have on-site veterinarians constantly and routinely assess the animals' health, much less properly feed them the kinds of food they need. I also came to learn that a Toco Toucan costs 10k to purchase as a baby to raise. In the US, a Tiger costs a little under 2,000 dollars. Crazy that a toucan costs 5 tigers.

Carole is a lesser evil compared to Joe, but all the big names you'll see as the show continues come off as chaotic evil alignment or something. Mystical doctor... what the fuck man lol
Just watch episode 4 and 5.

You’re right about not sympathizing with anyone. All of them ALL of them are complete and utter trash for various reasons. Yet, I felt like the documentary was trying to push the sympathy light on Joe Exotic despite being an abusive manipulative bastard who lure young men to gain sexual favors (that was quickly gloss over).

I don’t know how people are so, so obsessed with trying to paint Carole as the worst one when Joe, Jeff, and Doc Ankle are several tiers worse. Jeff and Doc Faux used tigers as a way to exploit women to gain sexual gains—and Carole is supposed to the ultimate bad? Over “some non-existing crackpot theory” about killing her husband, WHICH BY THE WAY WAS A PIECE OF SHIT HIMSELF?

Not saying Carole is innocent. Just cannot get behind this idea that Carole is the biggest fuckery when these dudes are walking among the earth, creating cults and exploited means to get what they want.

And none of them actually gave a damn to these tigers, lions and other animals—although Carole does attempt to placed a banned on exotic pets through federal means, which, as you said, Zoos are often more than not, terrible conditions and needs to be placed in animal sanctuary where they can be care for. They are essentially propping to boost their egos.

The young lad that lost their arm and CHOSE to stay to avoid having the park get any sort of backlash, while Joe was all “whelp, never gonna recover from that.” Come on, man-and the dude could’ve gotten his arm back… but the brainwashing was so damn strong that it wasn’t considered. And people are flocking to this clown like he’s the best one because he’s erratic, does some dumbass shit and say the weirdest fucking things?

I feel like there were a lot of things cut in order to make Joe a sympathetic figure, which people attempts to connect or “be on his side”. Hogwash. I bet the creators of this documentary got the balls or attempt to actually shows the light of how absolutely fuck was Joe’s zoo, he would’ve shown the racism, the meth orgies and all the drug use, and the fact that Joe does kill the animals (the part where the tiger went for his shoe and drag him, and used a gun to spook them and threaten to kill them).

The only good characters was the dude with the long blonde hair with sunglasses, Legless and Saff. It seems that he actually gave a damn about the place and the tigers and isn’t an unhinged fuckwards. Oh, and the campaign manager.

Can’t wait to see the fuckery of 6 and 7, and eventually 8.
If you notice the section where they call an ambulance for Saff, Joe was wearing an EMS jacket and vest... while filming everyone's reactions in the gift shop. Reminds me of Onision's incessant need to film literally every second (who filmed his ex wife having a mental breakdown while on the phone with the police, recorded the accident of his child after she fell from the 2nd story window because he "didn't want the doc to accuse him of abuse/neglect"... onision also is surrounded by allegations that he drew in barely-legal women for sexual favors by using his infamy of Youtube. I can draw more parallels but that's getting sidetracked)

It's very easy to make documentaries that are biased against certain people and paint them as the most evil, while making the other person look good to redeem them and fix up their career. If you can paint them as pitiful woe-is-me's, the uninitiated and uncritical will take it at face-value. Which becomes more and more apparent after episode 5. The last one tries to make you feel bad for Joe being in jail, but you'd have to forget the fact he had no problems killing tigers, including cubs if I recall, had no problems feeding his employees AND animals expired meat from walmart with bloody water pooling at the bottom of a van in boiling summer heat. Because he simply wouldn't pay them anything that was a livable wage.

Carole's ex husband was a shitbag and it turns out that some redditors heard of the street name she mentioned the night she was "walking on the roadside" before he pulled up asking her to go with him to a hotel. I forget the name of the street but locals know it's where you meet prostitutes. So not only was he cheating on his wife, but married a hooker who was young enough to be one of his own daughters. Definifely not creepy as fuck. Lol

I feel bad for Saff. They didn't even talk about the accident itself, I had to go digging for old articles trying to figure out what happened. It seemed to be a genuine freak accident since he wasn't following proper protocol of using a stick through the hole instead of the arm. He said he didn't want the media making a big stink out of it but I also think it probably would've landed him in financial hardship if he was living off of the park's payroll... assuming he wasn't insured at the time, he'd either have gone broke from paying out of pocket for multiple surgeries (and medication) or from missing work for more than a week. Joe wouldn't pay more than 150 a week and I remember some of his staff living in dilapidated trailers on site or very close to it.

His poor campaign manager probably has PTSD after what he witnessed. Jesus christ.
I stay inside unless I gotta go out and get essentials. Im studying for my June test still but in the meantime I've been perfecting my pizza dough recipe every Friday but lately the instant yeast was clean out at the store cause everyone's learning how to make bread and stuff now

Which is cool, I learned how to make that whipped coffee stuff and figured out the exact time needed to freeze a Starbucks drink into a frappe without the glass exploding. Just wish I had some yeast
That's awesome! I been practicing drawing these days, and I think I got the coloring/shading thing down. Just need to do that background, and hopefully, I'm on my way to have very good coloring.

Speaking of that, here's an idea about Police Reform. What do you guys think?

  • All Policemen are now required to obtain a license to become one. Don't have a license, you cannot become an Officer.
  • All Policemen are now required a minimum of 5 years to become an officer and take numerous courses, training, internship, etc.
  • If an officer has their license revoked, they cannot moved to another city to become an Officer. Revoked license means permanent disbarred from the police force.
  • Installed National Standard for all Police--all state and local governments have to abide by that standard.
  • Establish an independent inspector body with significant power that investigate misconduct and/or criminal allegations.
  • All Police officers must hold individual liability insurance and cannot have civil suits paid for by the city, state or federal level.
  • Passed a law that required Police Force to served the populace, interests and protect the people (to get around the Supreme Court case declaring "Cops don't have to protect you". 
ShineCero said:
  • All Policemen are now required to obtain a license to become one. Don't have a license, you cannot become an Officer.
  • All Policemen are now required a minimum of 5 years to become an officer and take numerous courses, training, internship, etc.
  • If an officer has their license revoked, they cannot moved to another city to become an Officer. Revoked license means permanent disbarred from the police force.
  • Installed National Standard for all Police--all state and local governments have to abide by that standard.

I'd agree more in line for these changes, all things considered. The current standard we hold our police to is consistently been proven to not be good enough for the results in their actions. I won't get into the demographics of this aspect, where there is an argument that the overall statistic on incidents like this low, but regardless of the stats at this point, we are at a stage in our country where we just simply need to be better.

I personally do not have a stance in the argument of how well our police do in reducing crime versus how many unfairly profiled citizens are harassed by cops, due to the fact that both sides have compelling arguments in the way of statistics. But regardless of who is truly right or wrong in this argument, it doesn't matter: our country and population have a clear stance that whatever state we are in now, it needs to be better. So we must hold our officers to a higher standard, and I do think these points you listed capture a method that could help us fairly improve our police system with one addition: better pay and rigorous requirements for physical standards.

Simply because the other side of the coin with officers is that they do deal with risks and overall job requirements that none of us will ever match intensity wise in our entire lives. So if we create a standard that works well in making sure we only have the best of us serving our communities, then we need to treat them well and pay them well. Simply because we do need to address the problem of, "well, half of those officers have that job because no one else will do it." 

So better pay and benefits will create a system that will challenge people who seek this route in life to be their best, and at the same time, hold them to a standard that we need for officers. So if they fail, then there's no excuse for it and they will be met with harsh justice for performing the way those trash cans did with George Floyd.

As well, there's no reason we need four officers to ever contain one unarmed suspect. Period. This isn't me saying that there's a problem with being, "overweight" in general, but if you are required to perform the physical duties of an officer, you should not be allowed to be at such a hindrance from poor physical conditioning and allowed to be a police officer.

Seeing the amount of overweight officers involved and their inability to contain one man like that is infuriating to say the least. So one of the main standards I believe is that the officers currently in the force need to be required to live healthier and required to be a certain fitness level. Raising pay and benefits would make it easy to require such a commitment to diet and exercise, imo.

ShineCero said:
  • Establish an independent inspector body with significant power that investigate misconduct and/or criminal allegations.

Technically, we already have institutions that should take on these roles already: the National Guard and the FBI, as well as the governors of each state being able to elect an entity to handle this. I'm not sure on this process in terms of thoroughness and what happens, but I do think that your point does hit this issue well with the fact that whatever methods we currently have in place for this, they do need to be more transparent, informative and overall just better.

We should not have to do in-depth research on why a police officer is cleared for the crime to understand the risks of the job, the situation, and the unavoidable outcome if the officer is proven to be in line with doing his job. It needs to be made clear effectively to the public, and it has to be done in a way that brings us together in a unified understanding of what real justice is.

IE, yes, maybe George Floyd was a forger and technically a criminal. But he did not deserve to be held in an illegal method of choke hold and killed as a result of his criminal activity and his physical response to the multiple officers containing the situation. So that was not justice, and I do hope that officer is held to the full extent of the law and put away for his entire life or executed for his crime. Based on what little information I know: it better be damn good reason why he had to hold him like that for it to make me believe it's warranted if there is something that can possibly explain the situation.

As well on the flipside, there was the incident of Michael Brown who had stolen from a convenience store, and actually fought with the police in an attempt to escape justice. Forensics evidence did conclude that Brown was charging at Wilson, at the very least, was attempting to injure or worse, kill him. Given the situation, I would say it is fair that Brown was shot for his actions. Yet history does not remember it that way: the amount of unrest that grew from his death grows in a similar manner to today. Where individuals that rightfully protest for reform on issues that need to be fixed, are marred and insulted by criminals that hide behind them and loot innocent businesses in the name of George Floyd.

So if we institute or reform our agencies to investigate these situations better, it needs to be done in a way that clearly informs our population and allows us to all come to a collective understanding about what truly happened and what real justice is in each and every complex scenario.

ShineCero said:
  • All Police officers must hold individual liability insurance and cannot have civil suits paid for by the city, state or federal level.

I disagree with this, and while I do know that your vision on this one is to attempt to correct potential corruption, I feel as if this should remain a police benefit if we manage to reform the current practice of internal affairs investigations as well as improving the standard to which we hold our police. The job requirement is to literally risk your life in some situations, so it would be unfair and silly for us to require that officers manage their life insurance in a system like capitalism that would exorbitantly raise their rates for the sole aspect of the job they hold, if those companies were even willing to pay for it at all. As well for cases regarding civil suits: since the police are vouched for by the Force, then their benefits should be covered if they win cases. To have it managed by the government is fair, and since we pay for the service of the police, it should come from tax payers.

Do the police currently deserve the money we pay them? Perhaps not, but at the end of the day, I would still argue that we shouldn't change the fact that we're paying for it. Only that we deserve a better product than what we're buying.

ShineCero said:
  • Passed a law that required Police Force to served the populace, interests and protect the people (to get around the Supreme Court case declaring "Cops don't have to protect you". 

I disagree on this one mostly because of two reasons:

1) That's already the requirement of the job, in regards to stopping crime. Like federal security guards, you can be taken to court and criminally charged depending on the severity and situation. The terminology is "enforce the law", but that usually is a legal battle solely because police discretion in upholding the law is also important and usually creates too complex of a situation. IE, it would be foolish if the police had to text/alert a citizen that is suspected of a crime that they are sending a police officer to arrest them over a suspected crime one hour in advance of dispatching a unit. So in the case Castle Rock vs Gonzalez, that was a very slippery legal battle due to the current method of how we handle restraining orders. Which, I do think we need to reform and overall find a better way for our law enforcement to be able to effectively uphold restraining orders without infringing on all people's rights, this problem is described below:

2) The real reason why we have not implemented anything past current statutes, is because there was no clear and unexploitable standard for how a cop has to protect the population. IE, imagine if you walked up to a cop and demanded they escort you home in fear of potential crime happening on your way home. It's a real possibility, however unlikely, and under a court ruling that demands such an action, it will likely be an offense that you could prosecute.

But if we lived in a world that would bog down our police force with such inefficiency, crime would be so easy to manipulate through exploitation of a rule like that. IE, a criminal group paying others to tie up the police force with efforts like that so they can freely hit a target of their choice with a delayed response from the bogged down police. There are so many people in this world that work to understand the system to exploit it, and our justice system is probably the most researched topic for this reason. So while I can agree that again, we need a better standard for our police, I will say that this sort of proposition is just too naive. That's why it was ruled: the law already requires the police to be held at the requirement of stopping crime, which covers things like murder and types of actions that would put the population in danger.

So I'd say that if we manage to improve our standard of the police and we had better officers serving the community under the current guidelines, then I'd say that this point being suggested would be solved. We have a variety of well trained and very professional, good cops across our country. While at the same time, we have garbage like the current set of officers in play: out of shape, most likely abusive issues with spouses, poor training, and overall poor capability to enforce the law.

Get the trash out, and I think we'll be fine.
Top Bottom