I really don’t think this is a good idea. Fascist media will be selectively editing the footage to tell lies about what’s really going on, and we all know the people that watch/listen to that garbage are not concerned with actual facts.
The media already does that, so it’s really no different. Without live streaming, the media would just straight up lie about what happened in court and live streaming provides vital protection against that. Trump WILL lie about what happens in court, this is why they are live streaming it.
Disinformation will be spread regardless. Yes, if there’s footage it does mean it can be edited and spliced. But then it’s even easier to clearly show that it’s disinformation if people can just watch the footage.
Precisely this. Whether they have public video of the trial or not, Republicans are going to make up a fantasy version of it anyway. Might as well have this major piece of history on public record as it happens.
So far they have all had the luxury of having their cases behind closed doors. There’s so many times where a judge has laid into them for trying to push ridiculous shit. If that happens (which we know it will because they are clowns) it would be great for the public to see the look on their faces.
And as a blue blooded, god feering, gun toting, truck driving, steak eating, pussy grabbing, anti-woke, America first, patriot like myself that is exactly what we want. -s
Those laws basically say it’s OK to shoot someone if you feel threatened. You can practically get away with murdering someone for looking at you the wrong way.
Fine, maybe I misinterpreted why people think it’s OK to shoot at people for knocking on their door or pulling into the wrong driveway. I still don’t want to go to places where people are likely to do that.
Kinda weird to be randomly knocking on doors, but to each their own. The country is also massive, just visit the nice states. Depending on where you live, youd be just as likely to be stabbed then shot at for knocking on a door.
I’m not moving anything. You think because a couple of people, in a country of 300 million killed by done crazy dude when they knock on his door, that the whole country is at risk. It’s a completely preposterous position. And this is not an exclusive risk to the US.
Because you watched stuff that a lot of gay people watched and then watched more stuff the algorithm suggested based on your previous watch history. It's not magic or anything.
While being restrained after the shooting at a Virginia school, the boy is said to have admitted “I did it”, adding “I got my mom’s gun last night”.
His teacher, Abigail “Abby” Zwerner - who survived - filed a $40m (£31.4m) lawsuit earlier this year.
Using his mother’s gun, the boy shot his first-grade teacher, Ms Zwerner, in the hand and chest on 6 January at Richneck Elementary School in Newport News, Virginia.
After the shooting, Ms Zwerner told police at hospital that she saw the child standing by his desk when he “pulled a firearm out of his jacket pocket and pointed it” at her, according to the newly released documents.
Amy Korvac, a reading specialist at the school, heard the gun shots and restrained the student until police arrived.
In Ms Zwerner’s lawsuit, filed in April, she accuses school officials of gross negligence for ignoring warning signs and argues the defendants knew the child “had a history of random violence”.
It would be good for her parents to make an effort with her too but I’ve heard Kathy Hilton’s a particular piece of shit. I can totes see why Paris had such a rough start
I have zero faith in a Republican-controlled Congress doing shit about child abuse because its all they know, hopefully the Dems rake the “ProLifestocks” over the coals about it and get this shameful bullshit criminalized like the conversion nonsense.
Redistribute their wealth, then set their parole parameters: hold an average job in food service or retail; live in an average apartment off those wages; keep that up for a set number of years, without external assistance from any third parties.
The idea for the race came when they heard about the 1977 escape of James Earl Ray, the assassin of Martin Luther King Jr, from nearby Brushy Mountain State Penitentiary.
What in cracker fucking hell. You know you could just fucking lie about your motives, right?
It is not a homage, it’s a mockery. It does retrace part of his escape, but goes 10x as far over much, much more brutal terrain. The race started as a joke about what a wimp the guy was to only cover 12 miles in 50hrs of running.
There is a documentary about the race called "the race that eats its young" that is excellent if you want to learn more.
I dunno, Cantrell seems kinda gleefully obtuse about the inspiration in the trailer. Now, I don’t think he’s intending to say anything nice about Ray, but there’s just something offputting about how casual he is about it, like he thinks the main cultural legacy of James Earl Ray is being bad at cross-country running. I guess not the end of the world, but… tacky.
Well, just from a media literacy stance, watching 90 seconds of a movie trailer and then deciding the blatantly irreverent presenter of a grueling triathlon/art piece that invites global participation is secretly a supporter of a racist murderer, is probably not rock solid analysis.
I can tell you as someone who watched the documentary in it entirely, dug deeper into the history afterwards, and has an ultra marathoner friend i’ve discussed it with, that I did not come to the same conclusion.
The fact of the matter is that the race has basically nothing to do with that piece of shit murderer. His sad ass escape may have been the inspiration 45 years ago for a joke that became an art piece that became a grueling ultra marathon, but now it is very much about the race. At no point do they venerate or even wink at the shithead. The closest they get i nthe documentary is that part of the race in 2014 involved wading through a stream that goes under the abandoned prison, but even that is just designed to plunge the runners and their many wounds into ice cold water over and over again as they lap the course over 60 insane hours.
As an example of the irreverence, of the 40 runners allowed each year, 1 runner who is deemed unqualified is allowed entry as the “human sacrifice.” They are given bib #1.
There is often a race fee of “a clean pair of socks” or tshirts, which he wears during the race. He demands “$1.60 and a license plate from your home country or state” as the entry fee.
Glad to hear it, and I hope was pretty explicit in stating I didn’t think he actually supported James Earl Ray. He comes off more as somebody who’s up his own ass than a crypto-racist.
Again, not the end of the world, just a bit tone deaf.
Again, 90 seconds of trailer isn’t exactly a great amount of source material for your conclusion, but okay then.
Dudes only “up his own ass” in the sense that he runs a brutal series of marathons in a whimsical fashion. He “keeps austin weird” basically, even if it is in Tennessee.
I hope the extensive list of articles, documentary links, and general feedback is enough to inspire a tasteful edit of something like “wow, I learned and that guy is great at making fun of the guy who shot MLK.”
Reading only the excerpt and knowing nothing else about the race, yeah I think it’s pretty fucking normal to be outraged. If it didn’t raise an eyebrow for you I find that very fucking suspicious.
The race and it’s organizers have nothing to do with, and make no comment on the motivation or the reason for imprisonment of the person.
It’s just about the escape, and the terrain covered, specifically. The point is he didn’t make it far on that terrain and the competitors do so much more.
The race and it’s organizers have nothing to do with, and make no comment on the motivation or the reason for imprisonment of the person.
They have willingly associated themselves with it after the fact, and to make no comment on what is an extremely dark chapter of American history seems pretty irresponsible. It would take absolutely no effort at all to say, “we are not valorising this man”, so not doing it is quite telling.
The point is he didn’t make it far on that terrain and the competitors do so much more.
If that is true and you have it from the organisers, then they have made some comment on the man himself. Could you share how you know about this?
Okay, reading the article itself and not just the summary:
The idea for the race came when they heard about the 1977 escape of James Earl Ray, the assassin of Martin Luther King Jr, from nearby Brushy Mountain State Penitentiary.
Ray covered only about 12 miles (19km) after running more than 50 hours in the woods, hiding from air searches during the day.
Cantrell is reported to have mocked the distance covered by Ray, saying: “I could do at least 100 miles.”
So it’s just that the summary leaves out this information, which if they’re going to mention the origins of the race is a pretty crucial detail to omit.
I have to say though, when you say they “make no comment on the motivation or the reason for imprisonment of the person” it really does create the impression they’re being neutral in the matter, which they obviously aren’t. I’m glad you explained more.
Look, the issue here is clearly that the race appeared crypto-racist on that summary, and instead of clearly explaining the issue, you stated exactly the things that the race organisers are neutral on, which seems to almost surgically sidestep the clearly anti-racist motivations. You weren’t technically wrong, but you can walk up to literally anyone on the street and say “you’re going to die” and you’re not wrong, but they’d want know why you were saying it.
This is about framing. There are infinite details in the universe, the trick with communication is to filter down to the important, salient details.
Cool talk, thanks, glad you took on board what I was saying.
You can see from my comments how easy it is to clarify this issue in a straightforward way once you have read the article, but if you don’t know how to do that I understand.
I was commenting based on the comment I was replying to, which on reflection seemed to be intentionally avoiding answering the question. I can’t think of another reason why someone who knew anything about this would have been as circumspect as they were.
Look, man, if you didn’t read the article and were misled by the auto generated summary, do not blame someone else for not spelling it out for you.
Maaaybe, step 2 of that miscommunication might’ve been them not explicitly spelling everything out for you, but what was step 1?
It was you commenting without having read the article at hand.
Guess which one of these two is within YOUR control to prevent future misunderstandings?
Things might be different if this comment thread wasn’t centered around a single article, but it is, so the reasonable assumption is that participants in the conversation have read the article.
EDIT: Don’t get me wrong, you get props for going back in the article and recognizing that it provides a very different context from the auto generated summary, but I just don’t think chastising someone else without acknowledging that you messed up by not reading the article is the play.
Okay, I didn’t read it and should have. Usually I would, but I was commenting on a conversation. It’s been dealt with now so we can drop it, right?
But on that issue, are you putting the other person on blast for not sharing the info? Because the moment I had it I clarified the issue very easily. I wonder what they were doing saying shit like:
The race and it’s organizers have nothing to do with, and make no comment on the motivation or the reason for imprisonment of the person.
Because that’s so wrong that if they did know the actual story then it amounts to a lie of omission. It’s so weirdly worded to avoid the truth it almost has to be deliberate. Any thoughts on that or is this like a team sport sort of situation?
But on that issue, are you putting the other person on blast for not sharing the info?
No, because it’s in the article being discussed at hand. It’s already been shared, some folks have ignored it.
It’s so weirdly worded to avoid the truth it almost has to be deliberate.
If you read the second paragraph of their comment, it further goes on to say it’s just about the terrain. That second paragraph then reframes the first paragraph, because that first paragraph just states that organizers didn’t comment on the crime, and the second paragraph says what the organizers actually focused on instead.
Sure, quoting the first sentence out of context makes it seem so deliberately precise that it could be misleading, but the second sentence provides the context that shows why they were so absolute in that statement.
They were simply claiming that the race organizers weren’t being political when they founded the race - they just saw challenging terrain and figured they’d be able to give it a go and get do much better.
Did I say that, or are you conflating the cognitive dissonance of me discouraging you from blindly trusting autogenerated summaries with me generally disagreeing with you on everything?
They were simply claiming that the race organizers weren’t being political when they founded the race - they just saw challenging terrain and figured they’d be able to give it a go and get do much better.
You can say you were just paraphrasing, but “simply claiming” implies you saw nothing wrong with what they were saying.
EDIT: And I actually said that “to pretend like that is devoid of politics” was a problem, I never said you were saying it. But apparently you’re happy to just repeat it as if it’s a fine thing to say.
Oh, well when I said , “simply claiming”, I was implying that most folks don’t have an issue understanding what they meant, because it’s simple when you take both paragraphs into consideration.
It seems like just as you chose to interpret things in an adversarial manner then, you are choosing to do so now.
EDIT: sigh, to address your edit:
And I actually said that “to pretend like that is devoid of politics” was a problem, I never said you were saying it.
It’s pretty clear that you were asserting it’s one of my beliefs here:
Yeah idk what app you’re using but in sync, once conversations have this many exchanges, it becomes completely unreadable as entire comments are compressed into a single column of 1 letter wide rows. Given this UI issue I’m not sure we can really continue the conversation if we wanted to.
I hope you have a good day - I appreciate the good faith and earnestness from everyone.
And the fact you couldn’t just say that in your comment is either because you don’t know how to just say what you mean, or you hadn’t read the article yourself at that point. Which is it?
And I didn’t brand the whole situation racist, that was conditional on the information you were giving me. If you wanted to say it wasn’t racist, you could have done that if you had the information.
Step 2 of being outraged by an auto generated summary would ideally be to read the actual article to get more context before expressing that outrage.
I don’t think the issue being raised here is that you were outraged by the excerpt, it’s that the excerpt was trusted at face value enough to mislead folks, and it seems people just double down after being misled by the auto generated excerpt.
The summary mentions this detail and completely omits the rest of that section:
The idea for the race came when they heard about the 1977 escape of James Earl Ray, the assassin of Martin Luther King Jr, from nearby Brushy Mountain State Penitentiary.
Ray covered only about 12 miles (19km) after running more than 50 hours in the woods, hiding from air searches during the day.
Cantrell is reported to have mocked the distance covered by Ray, saying: “I could do at least 100 miles.”
So it appears to be an extended exercise in mocking the asshole, which I wholeheartedly approve of.
Honestly the summary could’ve omitted the origins, or given it that crucial context. Giving the first sentence and not the rest is like the worst way to summarise that and it’s a big issue to just leave out. I would’ve included all of that because frankly it’s hilarious.
Yup, not sure why I got attacked and downvoted for this, it’s pretty fucking clear that the summary tells a different story than the article. But hey it’s par for the course on here, where outrage is performative, and real rage is frown upon.
I’ve also noticed an interesting trend from way back on Reddit, but there’s always some reactionary who uses one of the GBU bombs as their nickname.
Give a reactionary even the slightest chance to “well ackshually” away racism and they’ll jump on it. They’re not generally correct about things, so if they have a chance to be technically correct it’s like catnip. It’s fascinating how easy it would have been to explain the situation but this GBU person wanted them to be all “no comment” about it, as if that would have been an acceptable answer. It’s almost like they didn’t want to acknowledge the actual anti-racist motivations.
And yeah, I thought the GBU thing was familiar. I can’t find anything about it being a dogwhistle though, it’s not an easy thing to google.
EDIT: Maybe it’s not a dogwhistle, it could easily refer to guided bombs. Maybe it’s just one person with way too much time on their hands.
Yup, and there’s definitely people in this thread that really want to say “ackshually it’s not racist” but then are working really hard to give the impression that the race is simply neutral about the man himself. It’s almost like those people don’t want to admit that it’s actually anti-racist and based as fuck.
EDIT: I don’t want to vague-post about this. This is what the person in question actually said:
The race and it’s organizers have nothing to do with, and make no comment on the motivation or the reason for imprisonment of the person.
That’s fucked up, right? If they knew… how did they so specifically avoid explaining what the race is actually about?
She said that eight cleaning crew members, two flight attendants, and the captain and co-captain watched as she tried to help her husband exit the plane.
At first I was going to say, “how as a human being do you stand there and watch this?” But i have to think that many of those people wanted to help but felt that they could not. Instead, I’ll ask: What kind of terrible, shithole, money grubbing, leach on society company must this be to have made all of those employees too scared to step forward?
Except the captain. That is your plane, you subhuman piece of shit. The company you work for may be the devil, but you let this happen while it was your responsibility to fix it. You watched it and did nothing.
Undoubtably, the airline doesn’t allow them to help because of “lawsuit”
And while I agree, they should have had the wheelchair there in the first place, I don’t see that as the core problem. While this incident wouldn’t have happened if the wheelchair were there, there will always be problems that need to be addressed in real time while running their business.
This incident shows how they respond to problems and it is terrifying. Sure, the company could make sure there are wheelchairs on every plane so that this particular incident never happens again. But the broader issue is that they appear to have actively disempowered their employees from solving problems or doing anything outside their specific list of duties. Problems will always happen and you can’t have a precise plan for every possible problem. That’s whey employees need the power to solve those problems. Otherwise you get evil shit happening like this.
Edit: and the solution was simple. If you don’t have the wheelchair you are required to have, you wait for a wheelchair (or give the passenger get the option to be physically assisted off). Yes, that is painful to the business. It means delays. But that is the obvious solution.
That’s actually a really good point about the staff and their freedom/confidence to solve problems on their own initiative. Hadn’t thought of that, but you’re spot on.
Also agree on delaying the plane, I meant to say that myself. Imagine rushing the guy off AND not helping him… unbelievable.
My wife is disabled and needs wheelchair assistance at airports. Stuff like this happens to her all the time. I was not shocked to see the poster above saying it happens 30% of the time to them. The problem is capitalism, bureaucracy and lack of accountability.
Wheelchair assistance is provided not by the airline, but by the airport, who hires some local company to do it.
These companies without exception are the lowest bidder, and their management is trying to scrape maximum profit by providing minimum service.
This means not enough staff, staff who don’t care because they are woefully underpaid, site supervisors who are incompetent and under trained and wheelchairs that are poorly maintained.
My wife often has to endure wheelchairs that are like that shopping cart I’m sure you’ve pushed that lists to the left / only three wheels touch the ground / makes a “clunk” sound every few steps… These pieces of junk can actually really hurt her and have contributed to at least one ER visit.
So she started speaking up for herself, complaining and asking for better wheelchairs. Well… The assistance staff (who never speak English as a first language and often just can’t even parse what she’s saying) have refused, ignored her, told her other chairs aren’t available when we’re literally looking at chairs just sitting there empty.
I have told the assistance staff to wait with her and our luggage, gone and gotten another chair myself and then switched her into it while they stand there looking like an annoyed goat, not lifting a finger.
This isn’t even counting the absurd number of times there is NO wheel chair assistance at the gate when we arrive, or there are four people who need it but only two chairs, or the gate agents call for a chair and it takes them 45 minutes to come. I have called airlines on her behalf when she’s traveling alone, because she’s stranded in some arrival gate with no assistance, after having to drag herself and her bags off the plane alone and the gate agents have left her there alone. We’ve had shockingly similar experiences in San Francisco, San Diego, Sacramento, Denver, Las Vegas and Albuquerque. It’s chronic, and a result of industry cutting corners and doing the bare minimum they can get away with.
Sort of, but good Samaritan laws generally would protect the person. They still could be fired for helping even if nothing goes wrong, because they’re not trained for that and immediately firing you might help a potential legal defense (and they don’t care at all about employees or morale because of the brutality of late stage capitalism). The company would be on the hook either way
A brave person would have helped anyways and took it online if they faced repercussions, a smart person would have whispered to the guy “I could lose my job if you tell anyone I told you this, but if you take a stand you’ll win. Obviously we need the plane, and it’s not like we can put you on the no fly list for this. I’m sorry, this isn’t right, but I need my job”
A person working for a healthy company would’ve apologized profusely for the wait and called around the airport until they found a chair… There’s a 0% chance this wasn’t an option, it would’ve made the airline look bad, but not publicly… Unless they’d already burned so many bridges they couldn’t ask the airport (or even other airlines, competition or no it’s not a hard sell if you’re cordial to the people you work around)
bbc.co.uk
Top