dude, wtf? That literally happened to me today. I was bringing my kid a bowl of strawberries when I stepped right on top of a little toy house. Me on the floor. Strawberries all over the place. And all my kid could say was “wow, that was scary,” and then went back to playing. Savage.
From time to time people like to try to bring levity and light to their lives by telling jokes. These jokes can make people smile or laugh and are generally considered as a good thing to make peoples lives better and more bearable.
I’m gonna sound like a fringe conspiracy theorist here, but you guys, What if this was no random accident? What if someone intentionally made the plane crash? But who? And why?
Nonsense. The plane obviously accidentally collided with a surface-to-air missile that was randomly flying at the aircraft’s vicinity. Nothing to see here, move on.
Seriously though, she chose a show that was randomly chosen by the algorithm, she watched it, and more content of that type was suggested to her by the algorithm.
They didn't figure anything out. There's no sentience in the algorithm, only the creators of said algorithm. It only chose content based on input. So it all revolves around the choices of the article's author.
Same thing with the woman who was pregnant, the algorithm gave choices based on the user's browsing history. It made the connection that the choice of product A was also chosen by pregnant mothers, therefore the shopper might be interested in product B which is something an expecting mother would buy.
Ugh, I was agreeing with you, and you go pedant. Come on, you should know "figure out" doesnt necessarily imply sentience. It can also be used synonymously with, "determine."
I believe in case of the pregnant women she was offered diapers and stuff. Based on food she bought. So it’s no simply “you both diet coke, maybe try diet chocolate?”. In case of Netflix there’s no " A show only gay people watch" so her complaints are silly.
Has this story ever been confirmed by Target directly? As this happened in America and her father was outraged about it, it would have been awfully convenient, to “blame” the algorithm for “discovering”, she was pregnant. It takes quite a data analyst to figure out trends before someone even knows they are pregnant. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out a pattern for someone if they know they are pregnant and are just hiding it from their dad.
Yes. It’s many years in my past, but this was confirmed. Target still does their targeting but now scatter unrelated items in the ads to hide what they know.
“The complaint said Robertson came to the attention of federal agents in March after he posted a threat against Mr Bragg on Truth Social, the social network owned by Mr Trump. The company alerted the FBI’s National Threat Operations Center.
FBI agents then visited the suspect, who told them that the post was a “dream” and ended the conversation by saying: “We’re done here! Don’t return without a warrant!””
Not only does Truth Social narc on him, but the “dreams” defense was a true sign of just how far gone that asshole was.
Truth social is in it for the grift, not for the heat. They aren’t really the revolutionary counterculture fortress they make themselves out to be. They just figured out that stupid people are easy to monetize. Which is rapidly becoming MBA canon for all social media.
Honestly monetizing stupidity if you don’t have any personal morals is exceptionally easy. I often get jealous at the revenues even some of the simplest of these gifts are, and monkeypaw wish I was a shittier person.
It’s why every scammer goes after old people. They usually aren’t as sharp as they once were unfortunately…
My coworker just told me a story about his grandmother being robbed of 300k because some asshat came to her house and said she absolutely had to have the roof redone asap or it would collapse on her… She drove him to the bank and emptied her account… I was infuriated hearing about that and that he got away…
Why do you say that? Do you think an obvious grift like truth social isn’t going to be play nice with the government? Why would any action they do hold more weight then something like facebook, reddit or lemmy?
I imagine they put him down like a dog after he said that. I also imagine they just killed him first and made up that statement afterwards. Who’s going to contradict the crazed armed murderers, not the dead guy I can tell you that, just ask Fred Hampton.
it’s a really bizarre story, I can’t find a single article explaining what actually happened. usually the cops lie and say he drew a weapon on them, or shot at them first, or they feared for their lives or something. there’s nothing with this, they’re just saying he’s dead.
It all boils down to, there used to be subbed crazy idiot mouthing off to his phone. Then the cops came and now there’s a dead body.
This is what’s on the table with cop interaction, they’re going to kill you. They know the game better than you, they’ll always find a way to justify it and you’ll be too much of a rotting course to care.
There needs to be trust in the justice system. Otherwise, there’s no point in having a justice system. If he’s cleared, then there wasn’t enough evidence and he should be considered innocent. That’s how our justice system works. Don’t break the social contract because of your vendetta against rich people.
The problem is that our society doesn’t encourage people to immediately report crimes nor provide sufficient support for people who have been abused.
Do you think OJ Simpson is innocent? Would you want your daughter or sister to marry him?
The are different standards for a reason. Society is perfectly capable of being aware that someone is a giant dickbag without there being enough evidence to justify using the power of the state to remove their freedom and incarcerate them. Those are two extraordinarily different things and you know it.
To suggest otherwise is to imply that the government is a perfect arbiter of dispute that we should all just blindly accept. Something tells me you wouldn't be so keen on that stance when it worked against your interests
I think we need to recognise the moral panic of the situation too. People are out there looking to cancel others, others are out to use the moment for financial gain, and then there is the legitimate ones too. We dont know which they are and for the most part, the judicial system is only OK at separating them.
If you can smear someone and that’s it their life is over, no matter the truth of it, then what justice is that?
What’s the truth here… not very many people know, clearly.
I think we could use a little more moral panic about the actual number of people who are actually raped every year and maybe worry a little less about your proposed miniscule hypothetical
Hahahaha, that's hilarious. Because I'm actually at extraordinarily high risk of that happening. I'm a nurse. That happens all the time to nurses.
Thorough investigations are done. And no, I don't worry about it. You know why? Because I'm not a fucking rapist sexual predator and everyone who knows me knows that.
You gotta wonder about people who are sooooooooooooo worried about being "falsely" accused of rape that they think false accusations are worthy of jail time. What exactly are you doing out there in the world that this is a major concern in your life? That you think it's even possible for your whole life to be ruined over a baseless accusation?
Because this is simply not something I worry about at all.
This is way too close to “if you’ve done nothing wrong, you’ve got nothing to hide” logic.
What exactly are you doing out there in the world that this is a major concern in your life?
Making terrible choices in friends, for one. Never been accused of SA, thank christ, but figured out too late that many people live in their own reality, and rewrite history once the friendship ends. Have also known people who have been in that situation, and even if no charges end up being pressed, it’s still a gut-wrenching situation to be in.
The issue of how to handle SA accusations is such a nightmare that it’s practically inevitable that we have both innocent people convicted, and guilty people acquitted at the same time. Most of the time we don’t have the kind of oversight and institutional procedure you would enjoy if accused.
You're being deliberately obtuse and conflating completely different situations, and I think you're doing it on purpose to muddy the waters. An accusation after a breakup that cause a fight among friends is a very different situation from a report to the police. Even a report to the police often doesn't trigger an investigation. And God knows it rarely triggers an actual prosecution. These are simply not things that you need to worry about, if you're not running around the world raping people. If it causes you anxiety that severe, get therapy.
Because it's not the giant boogeyman that internet apologists like to pretend it is, with data:
Because I'm sorry, but losing a few friends is not a terrible enough consequence for me to get worked up about. Shit happens, friends get in fights and stop being friends over all sorts of dumb shit. I see zero reason why that would cause someone to go through their lives in mortal fear that they might be "falsely" accused of a sex crime.
The issue of how to handle sexual assault accusations is not complicated. I told you, we handle them all the time in the medical field. You default to protecting the accuser, you do a thorough investigation, if the investigation turns up no evidence, you move on.
A "he said, she said" situation that never gets formally investigated, but causes the breakup of some friendships is not as terrible as being actually raped. It's just not.
People, for a whole host of reasons, can be and very much are in different situations than you. Some have very little defense against such allegations, and so it should not be very difficult to understand that they could have their lives destroyed in an instant by false accusations.
For instance, if they engage in non-normalized sexual relations (for their area or country, obviously), be that interracial, same sex, BDSM, etc., particularly if they are not “out”. It’s very easy to go from “he tied me up and we had a great time”, to “that guy did me wrong somehow so now I’m going to press charges and claim he tied me up against my will and raped me”. If you don’t think this happens you’re living in a dream land.
You're living in a dream land if you think going to the police with nothing more than "yes I went over to his house consensually and it turned bad from there" is likely to result in a legal prosecution.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but this has actually happened. The case I know of, personally, involved a bar owner. He was exonerated after a few years being dragged through the mud, but he ended up having to shut down his bar and move out of town to be left alone. This stuff happens.
Do I have a better alternative? No, it’s a complex issue and we definitely don’t want to victim blame, but we also don’t want to destroy people’s lives over just allegations. It’s a delicate balance. I think one thing we could do, at very least, is to actually stand by the innocent until proven guilty ideal and not publish the identity of the accused until a verdict comes out. This is the way it is in most of Europe and a “perp walk” happening like it does in the US would free highly illegal.
I’ve given a lot of thought to this issue in the past and I think it all boils down to one indisputable fact:
“You just believe her” is completely at odds with “innocent until proven guilty.”
“We should believe women” is a laudable phrase, and it makes us feel good to say it, but men are victims as well, especially trans men. “We should believe victims” would be better, but it is a begging-the-question fallacy, it assumes the victimhood is true. The people who made that not possible are specifically the people who have made false allegations in the past.
It is far, far more common for women who allege to be completely ignored, ridiculed, dragged through the mud should they choose to pursue charges. That's a simple fact of the world. RAPE IS A BIGGER PROBLEM THAN FALSE RAPE ACCUSATIONS.
I also express little sympathy for people who worry more about the side effects of the Covid vaccine than they do about the negative effects of actual Covid. Because one of those things is an actual serious problem, and the other is a boogeyman used for political purposes.
Supported by data. You know, kind of like the difference between false accusations of rape and ACTUAL RAPE.
The people who have made false allegations in the past are exactly the reason we can’t just believe every victim that comes forward without proof. They are why we can’t have nice things. It’s not about the odds and ratios either, the state putting a completely innocent person in jail is a travesty of the system. The travesties of what we do to each other are the realities of living on a planet with other humans, we are terrible to one another regularly. We must do the absolute best we can to support victims of sexual assault…untested rape kits are a fucking abomination for instance and I’d be fine with tar and feathers for whoever let that happen. But we still must stop short of allowing even one innocent person to be put in jail.
I recommend watching “The People vs OJ Simpson” on this. It doesn’t really get into guilty vs not guilty, but just showcases just how complicated things got in that case.
The government performing arbitration is a power that society has vested in them. The solution to a flawed system is to fix the system, not vigilantism.
The lack of trust in the judiciary is a failure of government and a failure of society.
NO! That is how the court system, and therefore the state sees him in regards to punishment and treatment. That does not mean, and has never ever ever ever meant, that being declared not guilty means they are proven to be innocent. Just that there’s wasn’t evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.
A new justice system? Might as well overthrow the government and start over then, because the common law system is literally the foundation of society.
That’s exactly what we want, yes. And we’ll end up getting it too, with climate collapse, so trying to intimidate me into submitting to a system that is inherently biased and abusive and has done nothing but hurt myself and everyone I know and love personally will get you nowhere.
I will NOT change my mind on this and you can’t make me.
WE will not change our minds on this and you can’t make us.
We can and will make something better and there’s nothing you can do to stop us.
Wow. Reading through those Descriptions is rough. Many of them involve the cop lying with verbal testimony not matching bodycam footage. One I saw was after the guy was already restrained, he bit the cop’s finger, so the cop shot him. Others show that they are looking for (or will make up) any excuse to shoot: one person had a lighter in their hand which caused the cop to shoot and kill them. It’s honestly disgusting that people will go out of their way to defend this system. I guess that’s a level of privelege that I just don’t understand; how can you possibly be sure you’ll never be in such a situation with a lying, murderous police officer?
Huh, looks like this is talking about cops, of which there are millions of in America, and cops lying in reports, and not a about a court of law ruling a lynching was okay.
You’re taking an overly specific definition of lynching and framing the situation wrong, and coming to a bad conclusion.
A court’s refusal to punish it, in nearly every case, is tacit support. They aren’t saying “please, lynch!” but they’re saying they won’t punish lynching.
This also easily fits any definition of lynching that’s not so restricted so as to only include “hanging black people from trees in town squares”.
Obviously, no one should be convicted if evidence is insufficient. The issue that I have is that it’s difficult to believe someone is innocent when multiple people have alleged similar complaints. Does that make him guilty? No. But it increases my suspicion. And I’ll never be able to shake that suspicion. It doesn’t mean I want him locked up. It only means that I’m not comfortable with his art going forward. Which is a shame, because he’s one of the best actors of our time.
I’m not saying to blindly trust the judiciary, but that not trusting the judiciary is an inherent failure in society. We need to fix that, not focus on individual cases that will keep happening if our judicial system is morally and ethically compromised.
Innocence is VERY SPECIFICALLY NOT WHAT COURTS declare. They only ever declare that there wasn’t enough evidence presented to proof guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Right, so the only thing the court states is that innocence could not be disproven. Incidentally that’s similar to how statistical hypotheses are being proven - by showing that it’s unlikely to be false.
The presumption of innocence doesn’t preclude the fact that criminal courts don’t find someone innocent, rather they find someone not guilty.
This is for the simple fact that it’s neigh impossible to establish someone’s innocence, whereas it’s easier to establish that there isn’t enough evidence to consider someone guilty.
This case is, and sexual assault cases in general are, a great example why we can’t expect criminal courts to establish innocence.
These are often cases with little evidence available either which way, because often there are no other witnesses. Even if there would be physical evidence of a sexual act, it’s still challenging to prove under what circumstances those acts have occurred, specifically on the matter of consent.
To expect a court to be able to say with certainty that something hasn’t occurred is unreasonable.
That is not to say that it isn’t good that we have these high standards before we impose punishment onto someone, but it is important to recognize what it means when a court comes to a decision.
Additionally the presumption of innocence is just that, a presumption to establish who has the onus to prove something, there is no additional meaning attributed to it in the legal principle beyond establishing who has the onus to prove the facts at hand.
In that regard it’s rather unfortunately named, as it would’ve been more apt to name it “the presumption of not guilty” but I suppose that doesn’t roll as nicely off the tongue
To add to that, that the presumption is specifically a principle that only has meaning in criminal court, because the burden of proof is generally higher than in civil court.
People can be, and have been, found liable in civil court for the very thing a criminal court has found them “not guilty” on, on the very basis that criminal court can’t establish innocence and that the bar that needs to be met in civil court is generally lower than in criminal court.
As such to bring up the presumption of innocence in a vacuum is kind of like bringing up the generally recognized human right of freedom of speech when a social media company bans someone and removes their post.
Yes, the concept exists, but it’s irrelevant because it doesn’t apply to the topic at hand, because the concept aims to govern a very specific circumstance that isn’t applicable here and withholding the important context surrounding it (i.e. the role it plays in criminal court for the presumption and the fact that it only limits governments for the freedom of speech) masks the limitations of said concept.
None of the above aims to reflect my opinion on Spacey’s innocence (or lack thereof), rather it aims to provide the necessary details to put things into context.
no, we are not part of the government. same reason the 1st amendment does not apply to private property. it protects speech from censorship from the government.
Considered innocent, by the state organs. Considered innocent, in how the state treats them. NOT EVER AT ALL PROVEN innocent by the courts.
Courts are not and have never been concerned about proving innocence. All they care about is guilty or not guilty. Not guilty could mean innocent, but again, the courts don’t care about that.
Considered innocent, by the state organs. Considered innocent, in how the state treats them. NOT EVER AT ALL PROVEN innocent by the courts.
Courts are not and have never been concerned about proving innocence. All they care about is guilty or not guilty. Not guilty could mean innocent, but again, the courts don’t care about that.
What I’m saying is that the basic social contract used to be that you would be considered innocent until proven guilty by your peers. If we abandon we mess with the foundations of society at our own peril.
“European customs and values” is a bit hard to define I feel. The eastern European states are quite different from the rest. Poland and Sweden are in stark contrast to one another, as is even Sweden and Germany.
I’d like to say that the EU is quite strongly in favour of democracies, which Turkey definitely isn’t. I’ve a dear friend who basically didn’t dare discuss politics because of the potential fallout that could have on his job and living situation. He’s since moved away from Turkey and his life has improved dramatically.
It’s difficult for me as a Swede to reconcile the fact that speaking out against the state could land me in hot water. Like I can call our PM a bag of dicks, and make poop-caricatures of any parliament member all day if I wanted to, and it wouldn’t necessarily have any fallout beyond burning some bridges with people.
Turkey’s also heavily religious conservative, and as a gay person that doesn’t sit well with me. That extends to all currently-in-the-EU countries that match that description as well, though.
I think you touched on the main aspects where things are different. Although, yes, there are many cultural differences across Europe as well (and I see that as a strength) they don’t run as deep. I would add my worry about their treatment of the Kurd minority. To be fair, however, things do change over the years, and there are a couple more countries that have turned for the worse, IMO.
Oh yeah, the treatment of the Kurds is harrowing. During the early days of Sweden’s bid for NATO, Turkey asked for a lot. They gave us lists of people to be extradited, and even made requests for our constitution to be changed to accommodate this. Basically extortion.
Needless to say, Turkey (and Hungary) hasn’t exactly garnered a lot of goodwill here in Sweden lately. A part of me is even a bit bummed out about the NATO thing, because the idea of allying with Turkey, and potentially having to deploy troops to defend them should it come to that, doesn’t sit well with me.
the idea of allying with Turkey, and potentially having to deploy troops to defend them should it come to that, doesn’t sit well with me.
That a good thing which comes from a larger coalition. The more countries involved that won't attack each other, and the more counties that will aid other countries in the coalition if needed, the less likely there is a need to raise those defenses. I'm glad to see Finland and Sweden joining, not because of the troops and resources they might commit, but because it improves everyone's self sovereignty, including those nations which aren't full members.
Quite the shock when Erdogan tried to blackmail his country into the EU. I hope Sweden will also not give in when it comes to burning religious books.
I would say there is a huge difference in culture and values when comparing to those people from Turkey who are very conservative or religious. We even have some here who voted in Germany for Erdogan!
But the difference isn’t that big with secular, non-conservative people. It is like Turkey has two sides.
European values are irrelevant for being a NATO member. But I believe being a democracy is a requirement, but USA is a somewhat flawed democracy too. But hen again no democracy is perfect.
Not NATO, the EU. Turkey is in NATO already, the other poster was probably mentioning EU because Erdogan has recently indicate he wanted to join before letting Sweden in NATO.
That doesn’t even make any sense. Erdogan has done nothing but backpedal on all the efforts Turkey had done before him to increase cooperation and become a member of EU. Erdogan clearly does NOT want Turkey to become a member of EU.
Also it’s completely unrealistic for Erdogan to wish to Join EU before Sweden becomes a member of NATO. In NATO all members want Sweden in, except Turkey and Hungary. In EU there are ZERO countries that want Turkey in the EU. So how would he realistically imagine it would be possible for Turkey to join EU before Sweden joins NATO.
Turkey is probably more at risk of being thrown out of NATO, unless they begin to moderate their behavior. Technically they don’t meet the requirements to be a member of NATO anymore.
It’s not even about customs or abstract values in general. Some of the past and present aspirants or aspirants in spe seem to see only the economic side of things, while considering the legally binding parts of the treaty like the European Convention on Human Rights or the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union more like an optional thing.
Quite the shock when Erdogan tried to blackmail his country into the EU. I hope Sweden will also not give in when it comes to burning religious books.
I would say there is a huge difference in culture and values when comparing to those people from Turkey who are very conservative or religious. We even have some here who voted in Germany for Erdogan!
But the difference isn’t that big with secular, non-conservative people. It is like Turkey has two sides.
Isn’t abolishing the death penalty part of the requirements? And there’s some more that makes it simply unrealistic to think it’s happening in the next decade or two.
It’s like a 30 point check list and so far they’ve completed zero or maybe one. It’s a long way.
Erdogan reinstated the death penalty at the coup, so basically he has moved away from EU membership since taking control.
I think it’s a good thing that it is a long process, even if people moan about Ukraine not getting a shortcut. Imagine if Turkey had completed the membership before the coup. That would have been horrible today. Similarly it would be unwise to allow Ukraine in right now, since we have no idea of what will happen after the war. A dictator could potentially take the power there too. The requirements aren’t just bureaucracy, they do serve a purpose.
Personally I hope that they both succeed eventually, but it has to be done properly. Both Ukraine and Turkey could contribute positively to EU if only they manage to get proper democratic governments and follow human rights etc. first.
The US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), which is leading an investigation into the incident, said pilots had reported pressurisation warning lights on three previous flights made by the specific Alaska Airlines Max 9 involved in the incident.
As bad as it is if a manufacturing issue caused a piece to fall off an airplane, there's a huge amount of negligence in an airline continuing to fly an airplane that has triggered pressure warnings multiple times without investigating and resolving the issue.
Agreed. This is a multi-layered fuckup. The manufacturer probably didn’t tighten things down all the way, their QA didn’t catch the critical defect, the plane inspectors didn’t catch it during inspection, the airline didn’t ground it after a pressurization warning, the pilot flew a plane with a known issue. There are several cultures of complacency at play. Hopefully the FAA can scare everyone into flying right.
The reason I added the "if" is because I didn't see any information about age and don't know the specifics of the engineering/specs. Bolts needing the be checked annually and tightened every 5 on average could be perfectly reasonable with how much stress is on airplanes. There's a reason frequent inspection is enforced more heavily on airplanes, and it's not just because failures mean potentially falling out of the sky.
But yeah, it's entirely possible they fucked up, but it's for sure United Alaska did.
The jet had been prevented from making long-haul flights over water so that the plane “could return very quickly to an airport” in the event the warnings happened again, NTSB chief Jennifer Homendy said.
Which makes it sound like they couldn’t find the source of that warning but weren’t willing to completely write it off.
I’ll wait to pass judgement because, not being an expert, I have no idea what the standard procedure is for that warning appearing in 3 out of however many (hundreds of?) flights this plane engaged in over that period of time. With hindsight of course we can say “duh don’t fly the plane with the door about to blow off if it says it has pressurization issues” but maybe this is not actually a particularly serious warning in different circumstances.
If I’m not mistaken, the Alaska Airlines accident aircraft completed 99 flights, as it went into service only a couple months ago.
Not an expert myself but I binge air crash investigation shows like nobody’s business, and this seems to speak to QC and maintenance workload/culture issues.
Apparently it started immediately after Alaska installed their wifi equipment, which some sources have indicated requires opening that door plug. They apparently assumed it was due to the wifi install. Should have grounded it until the figured it out.
Ex-aircraft mechanic here. Nothing will have been done in this situation without paperwork backing the decision. There are often small niggles that could ground an aircraft, but there are manuals that can be consulted to see how many more flights can be taken before it must be grounded for rectification - the MEL (minimum equipment list) and CDL (configuration deviation list). So the airline will not have made the ultimate decision to keep flying, Boeing will.
The fact that this has now been found in two different airlines means that it’s a design flaw again, either the locking mechanism on the bolts is insufficient, or the reinstallation instructions in the maintenance manual is incorrect (the Alaska airlines aircraft door plug was recently removed to carry out maintenance on another part)
As an airline customer, I would much rather have the airline tell me the plane was grounded due to parts being ready to fall off than the 3 hours I had to wait one time because of a busted tray table.
Reporter: "Mr. Putin, how is it possible that you got 132% of the vote?"
Putin: "It is merely the byproduct of our superiour domestic mathematical sciences. The numbers are simply greater than the ones produced by foreign-made axioms. Do think of all of the great achievements our mathematicians have done over centuries, such as proving the Poincaré conjecture."
Reporter: (gasp) "Your ballot results were tabulated by Grigori Perelman?"
Putin: "No, we looked at his qualifications but we figured he was out of our reach, unfortunately. We had the results tabulated by some other weird mathematician with a massive case of cabin fever. We saved a lot of taxpayer money this way."
You see, only 39% of the population voted. 95% of the people who voted, voted for Putin. So if you extrapolate that out to the entire population, you get 37% + 95% = 132%. With math like that you can’t lose!
Yeah he’s known for rage firing people. Also not related but as a child he was pushed down a flight of stairs for making a (supposedly) insensitive joke to a kid who lost his dad to suicide.
Rage firing at his own companies is bad enough, but he was trying to get people fired from completely unrelated companies for their tweets about Tesla.
Back in 2018, The Wall Street Journal reported that Musk actively monitored Twitter for tweets containing the hashtag $TSLA, often used by Tesla short-sellers. Musk would reach out to executives at companies to investigate employees who were potentially publishing negative tweets about his electric vehicle company.
During that time, Musk reportedly emailed former Volkswagen CEO Herbert Diess in July 2018, questioning whether one of Diess’s employees was using Twitter to criticize Tesla anonymously. Business Insider later reported that Volkswagen determined the tweets were posted by the employee’s brother.
Musk also allegedly texted Lawrence Fossi’s employer. According to the WSJ, on July 23, 2018, Musk sent a text to the top executive at Fossi’s company, asking the boss whether he knew his employee, known on Twitter as Montana Skeptic, “was obsessively trashing Tesla via a pseudonym,” as disclosed in the report.
Following the incident, Fossi voluntarily deactivated his Twitter account and ceased writing for Seeking Alpha. Expressing his surprise at the extent to which Musk would go to quash criticism, Fossi commented, “I’m a nobody and he calls my employer?”
So that’s what makes you a billionaire. You need to find talking to people in a shitty way rejuvenating. Luck obviously but you also got to be really excited to talk to people about how they need to do what you want all time.
So the months of coordinated efforts to by activists to disrupt Democratic meetings, harass Democratic politicians, chant genocide Joe, vote uncommitted in primaries, block traffic, support BDS efforts etc. was actually an effective method of protest that had a small but meaningful effect in changing foreign policy?
The methods of protest the state wants us to think are successful and the methods that can actually succeed are usually not the same. Please take note.
And will they reward Biden for listening or reinforce the idea that there’s no point trying to please the progressive left by finding some other reason to get upset and not vote?
I don’t think the progressive left is why Hillary lost. Certainly, people choosing not to vote because she was centrist had an impact, but I don’t think there were really enough “Bernie or bust” folks to be solely responsible. You actually had a higher percentage of Bernie voters going for Hillary in 2016 than you did Hilary voters going for Obama in 2008.
You had like five different factors and a pretty tight final margin. No one factor was responsible. Comey’s letter, Hilary being center, Russian meddling, online misinformation – all of it is partially but not wholly responsible.
Ah, you must be a “progressive” who cares more about being right and owning the libs than actually advancing a progressive agenda. I much prefer prioritizing progressive goals and making progress towards them. This UN resolution is a step, and Netanyahu’s petulant reaction to it only makes it more likely that we take more right steps in the future. I’ll continue to celebrate those and hope Biden moves in the right direction, instead of scoffing about “how I was right” in 2016.
And for that matter, I seem to recall a lot of “progressives” saying Biden would lose in 2020 and Democrats would be destroyed in 2022 – yet, i don’t see you mentioning those predictions. You’ve only got 1 out of 3 right there. I’m sure however in 2026, regardless of how this year goes, you’ll still mention how you were right about 2016, won’t you?
I think there’s two sides to this. Criticizers shouldn’t suddenly fall in line because we’ve made progress, but they also shouldn’t pretend that nothing’s happened.
The right answer is to give credit to Biden for listening this much, and continue to push for more. I agree though that overall, this action should earn him more progressive votes – just not all of them, and not with all criticism disappearing.
There’s a flip side to the politics: criticism from the right-wing pro-Israel faction is quieter than usual because a separate group of anti-semites have gained power in the Republican party.
Normally, Biden wouldn’t have much incentive listen much to the far left, but right now he’s not paying much in costs from the other side.
No, he really doesn’t, because of winner takes all elections and the two party system. The Nash equilibrium is for both major party candidates to align their platforms right on the 50% median voter. This maximizes the votes for both of them.
In this specific upcoming general election, Biden’s base voters have nowhere to go to except the Cheeto fascist. Not much reason to cater to their policy preferences–they don’t have a real choice. That’s been reflected in the chatter on Lemmy as well.
You understand there is no such thing as a median voter. They are only issues and most voters have one or two issues they won’t compromise on. Biden is alienating younger and Muslim voters. If Biden was converting 1+ Trump voter for every voter he loses, you might have a point. But there is no evidence he is netting votes from this. That makes no sense in an election that’s fighting against authoritarianism.
Why can’t we agree Biden that needs to go all out to win this thing?
I think this is exactly what I want to see, news orgs (not just “mainstream” news, but let’s say, professional orgs in an industry) hosting their own instances with closed signups for accounts with JUST relevant topics. I tried to find some journalists on journa.host to fill in tech and local news, and while I found the people, it was way too much personal/personality content and not as much news.
Relying on a third party for your social media presence is a bad idea. Imagine if Elon got a bug up his ass and banned all BBC accounts; they’d be left in a lurch. Or if, as we saw, someone else got a blue checkmark and pretended to be the BBC.
But by running their own site they have control over who posts what, while still able to interact with users on other instances.
With Mastodon being a German non-profit company, it’s natural that Germany is also well-represented with a federal instance social.bund.de, instance for the state of Baden-Württemberg bawü.social (both since 2020), world’s largest public broadcasters ARD ard.social and ZDF zdf.social, and AFAIK the first news publisher to officially launch its own instance, Heise social.heise.de. There are probably loads of other instances and accounts I’m missing.
PS: The production company behind ZDF Magazin Royale (late night comedy and investigative journalism show, think Last Week Tonight ) is also running a private instance edi.social and a public instance det.social, named after the Mainzelmännchen.
Not enough. Let’s remember Floyd got a death sentence with no trial or jury but simply because these cops thought of themselves as judge, jury and executioner.
4 officers on scene. Iirc 2 normal officers, 2 rookies like first week. He was a normal officer and went on crowd control while the other officer knelt on the guy’s neck. The 2 rookies looked on.
The fully trained, but still new to the force rookies held Floyd down while Chavin executed him. They were not passive bystanders. One of the rookies said they should move him, but did not. That rookie was given some leniency for trying to do the right thing, but still convicted because he didn’t actually do it.
This asshole stopped a crowd that was begging to help save floyds life, including a paramedic/firefighter that told them Floyd was dying. He then told jokes as floyd choked to death, begging for his mother.
It’s all on video, all 9+ minutes. You can watch the whole murder in real time. Go do it if you doubt any of the above.
All 4 officers could have made different and better choices that day, but instead all 4 opted to either murder a man or let a man be murdered. They all got what they deserved.
in fairness, i have sympathy for the rookies. two much more experienced senior officers lead the way and i can easily imagined they doubted themselves in their presense. they just looked on. they should get punished sure but i get it. the other two however, long fucking stay in jail please.
he didnt die from being choked He died from Fentanyl. The cop that did the knee DEFINITELY she be locked up ! The other two kicked off the force maybe. But not jail time
Medical examiner testified saying fentanyl was a contributing factor but not the direct cause of death. George Floyd was murdered and people like you are essentially saying he deserved to die because of his behavior. Cops are not the judge, jury, and executioner, and if they were capable of holding him down and killing him then they were capable of handcuffing and arresting him, but chose not to.
bbc.co.uk
Top