Neither you nor anyone else downvoting has provided any backup for their impulses… Fuck both your and my emotions, provide facts! Judges issue sanctions, neither sides’ lawyers can! If you still disagree, what have I gotten wrong?
There’s a slate of judges who are refusing to do their jobs. There shouldn’t be another discussion about it, the lawyers were warned, and this step should be to file sanctions and report them to the bar.
A Colorado judge issued an order disallowing Trump from intimidating witnesses or officers of the court - something that is ALREADY illegal. They’re so terrified of putting him in jail for contempt.
Did you ever think that if different judges with different political ideologies are all doing the same thing, it’s because they’re all acting professional and not giving Trump room to scream from the rooftops that it’s political persecution? They have to take progressive enforcement.
I would think it is more about not wanting the same rules applied to other rich people. Can’t have precedent set for the rich and connected actually being punished for anything, otherwise they might go after other corrupt people, too!
Judges will often bend over backwards to limit the possibility of a successful appeal. They don’t like having an appeals court overturn a verdict since it means they would then have to retry the entire case again.
By giving the defense multiple warnings they’re effectively preventing them from using this instance as a credible argument in an appeal. In an appeal the defense might say something like “the judge unfairly ruled against me regarding X”. But the appellate court will see in the transcript that the judge issued multiple warnings before ruling on X and use that to reject the claim.
Surely we can find a sensible middle ground between allowing senile elderly folks to hold positions of power and kicking every 65 year old out of every job lmao.
In my very backwards and barbaric country every person, regardless of their profession, receives a state paid pension and we have a notion of social safety net. There are homeless here, like everywhere else in the world, but elderly citizens can retire knowing they will be taken care of.
On the particular case of judges, and on this I have the luck to have been explained how things work, upon reaching 65, a judge is retired and recognized by their service, with a very generous pension, as the career is considered as being of high strain.
No one should be forced nor allowed to work until their dying breath and this is a prime example for it.
The US are a shithole that stays afloat because the population is kept tame via populist discourse and seeded in-fighting.
And after reading your comment, I find myself wondering how so many people, from my country included, go to the UK to work. Sounds a bit like US but a notch down.
We all make our choices but you could have chosen other countries, with better social networks.
I have been making contributions towards my national pension fund since I started working and enjoy a free access NHS. When I eventually reach the age of retirement, which now is around 67 years of age, I’ll be granted a pension based on my contributive career.
I’ll still be able to keep working if I choose to but most people don’t and others are barred from it, like judges, surgeons, police officers and even politians, as they are seen unfit to hold crucial positions.
And this applies to all emigrants that move here, with some added conditions, obviously, but still are eligible for these social benefits.
And regardless all of this, you can and should save (products with special tax exemptions exist for that exact purpose) if you expect to maintain a specific standard of living.
I would suggest that, instead, after a certain age or catastrophic loss (such as that of a lifetime partner) we should all be receiving regular competency / cognizants evaluations. I think that compulsive retirement would be dehumanizing, a potential trigger for senility, dementia, or suicide, and a negligent misappropriation of the experience and institutional knowledge, that many of our seniors hold.
Most modern countries contemplate the notion that at some point in your life you are deemed unfit of occupying an active position, regardless whatever experience an individual may have in whatever field.
What that does not imply is the individual being rendered useless. Highly experienced individuals can act as teachers, mentors and advisers, sharing experience but with no weight for actual decision making or action taking.
I myself don’t intend to reach retirement age and turn off all switches and just stay home and vegetate; I think I can make myself useful up until my body becomes too frail and my mind breaks. But there is a point where I don’t want to have any responsabilities towards an institution.
Oh no, it's never good to see a picture of one's high school in the news. That stuck-up suburb is still teeming with white supremacists and indignant morons.
Who knows maybe by adding 6 months it puts her in a different category for parole or something. It only takes $1 to move you from one tax bracket to another one. Maybe something like that is involved. I honestly don’t know.
I think you might have a misunderstanding about how tax brackets work (at least if you’re taking about american federal income taxes). Progressive tax rates mean that only the income that is over the threshold for the new tax bracket gets taxes with the higher %. So if you are $1 over the limlt for a new tax bracket, only that dollar gets taxed with the higher percentage. You can read about this anywhere, this is just the first source I found.
So, I don’t see how this example still applies here. But after some reading, apparently the prosecution got some new information after the plea deal, so the asked for 9 years, and the judge compromised on 8.5. That’s at least what this article implies.
Pazienza’s plea agreement called for an eight-year sentence but prosecutors asked for nine years based on new information contained in a presentence report, a spokesperson for Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg said.
This man is about to get the narrowest gag order ever written, lol. He literally can’t open his mouth about this trial and not threaten or intimidate someone.
Dude knows he’s going down hard in the next 12 months. He has managed to skirt the law this long, but that long arm is tugging at him and he’s scared shitless.
No one is a ‘big strong man’ the first night in prison when you’re the only person in your cell and you only have your thoughts about how you got there.
Hasn’t he already violated several gag orders without any consequences? Why should he stop now?
My understanding of the current situation is that there were “informal” warnings, but not actually codified legal gag orders. I guess it was like the judge specifically told Trump not to say anything that could be construed as witness intimidation or jury poisoning.
Since he immediately turned around and did exactly that, now they’re doing it “officially”.
Any other person would have thrown into jail a long time already, but he keeps getting away with it.
Oh, far and beyond without a doubt a normal person like you or I would be in the slammer right now waiting for trial. I could not say the shit that he said in front of a camera and not be immediately punished for it. Trump has been treated with kid gloves throughout the whole process because everybody is afraid of invoking political wrath. I’d say if you make a fool of yourself and clearly attempt to obstruct justice, it shouldn’t matter if you are a president or a pauper, it’s time to be put away. Smart people stay silent.
I fail to see how they relate…? Prank videos often show what some might consider harassment of strangers. SCPs are essentially a collection of creative writing prompts. I legitimately cannot fathom how the existence of the SCP website would bother someone unless they just have an issue with fiction writing for some strange reason…?
He’s still needing to fight the charge for shooting into an occupied dwelling - judge is hearing arguments in October. He’s also been in police custody since the incident 6 months ago. I hope he wins though. I think the gun was too far, but the increase in lethality in any situation where someone has a gun is well known and documented, and comes down to a policy issue rather than his own personal failing imo.
This is a perfect example of gun laws not making common sense. You can have your shooting ruled justified and still get a felony on the fact of where it happened. Like you had a choice.
I’m not trying to make a strawman argument with this comment, I would simply like to state the misfortune that some countries prohibit the use of pepper spray for self-defence. Canada is one such example that is known to me.
If the safety we pay for, and the justice we expect isn’t provided sufficiently by the state, I think it’s sensible to ignore prohibitions of this nature. I don’t personally view them as a misfortune - freedom is a practice.
I think it’s sensible to ignore prohibitions of this nature
While sensible, I would argue that it is ill-advised (depending on context). One would instead be better suited to protest for this right, or to build grassroots support with the hope of democratically achieving it.
freedom is a practice.
I do strongly agree with this statement; however, the rule of law must be respected unless one is absolutely certain that there is no other choice. I think the declaration of independence puts it succinctly:
[…] Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government […] Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. […]
While sensible, I would argue that it is ill-advised (depending on context). One would instead be better suited to protest for this right, or to build grassroots support with the hope of democratically achieving it.
Sure, but it takes energy to protest & there are only so many hours in a day. If you’re fighting for something righteous, alright, maybe it’s worth it. But all that work for something that sits on the shelf at cabelas that anybody can buy? Nah.
the rule of law must be respected unless one is absolutely certain that there is no other choice
I disagree with this. There are laws that are unfair, discriminatory, puritanical, fruits of political gamesmanship, legislative overreach, arbitrary coincidences of time & place, restrictive on activities that harm no one, etc. I don’t think people oppressed by those laws should have to bear the burden of crusading against them. I don’t think disobedience needs to have strings attached.
Sure, but it takes energy to protest & there are only so many hours in a day.
Freedom is accomplished through practice 😉.
If you’re fighting for something righteous, alright, maybe it’s worth it.
You don’t think that fighting for one’s freedom is righteous?
But all that work for something that sits on the shelf at cabelas that anybody can buy? Nah.
What do you mean? I don’t understand how this statement ties in with what you were previously talking about.
I disagree with this. There are laws that are unfair, discriminatory, puritanical, fruits of political gamesmanship, legislative overreach, arbitrary coincidences of time & place, restrictive on activities that harm no one, etc.
I would argue that malicious compliance would be one’s best form of resistance in the case where one is not subject to absolute despotism. There is also something called “Jury Nullification” which can be a boon for making these sorts of changes.
I don’t think disobedience needs to have strings attached.
If disobedience carried no risk, then we would not live in a civil society.
Correct, people shouldn’t go around shooting people that they don’t like, but that isn’t what happened here – Alan Colie was acting in self-defence. That is, of course, unless you are of the opinion that people shouldn’t be allowed to use firearms in self-defence.
Sure defending oneself with firearms may be appropriate in some circumstances, simply walking away might be appropriate in other circumstances.
Some would argue the latter was more appropriate in this circumstance, and others would argue the former, but we can probably both agree there would be more people arguing the former in the US than in most other countries.
Have you seen the video? The shooter getting “pranked” had both hands occupied carrying a paper bag and was being followed and harassed for over 10 seconds while repeatedly telling the prankster to stop.
It does seem like an overreaction to shoot immediately instead of trying to threaten first but I’m not sure.
I would’ve fully sided with the shooter if they’re weren’t in a mall with other people around and probably security right around the corner, because then he would’ve been much more at risk if he doesn’t shoot and the prankster tries to rob him or w/e.
Someone walking up to you us bad, but it isn’t a credible threat to your life. On the one hand, youtube should be held liable for incentuvizing this behavior, even if it means repealling section 250. On the other hand, you shouldn’t start a shootout at Walmart over a tik tok. All of America will become a battlefield.
Someone walking up to you us bad, but it isn’t a credible threat to your life. On the one hand, youtube should be held liable for incentuvizing this behavior, even if it means repealling section 250. On the other hand, you shouldn’t start a shootout at Walmart over a tik tok. All of America will become a battlefield.
Someone walking up to you us bad, but it isn’t a credible threat to your life.
It entirely depends on context.
youtube should be held liable for incentuvizing this behavior
For one, YouTube isn’t directly incentivizing it. The existence of money, and social fame are the main incentivizing factors. YouTube simply provides the platform. Holding YouTube accountable for this would carry enormous ramifications for the rest of the internet.
even if it means repealling section 250
Do you mean Section 230…?
On the other hand, you shouldn’t start a shootout at Walmart over a tik tok.
That is a rather reductive statement – you are ignoring crucial contextual information. The victim assessed that, given the situation, there was a credible threat to his safety, and acted accordingly.
Hm, one must be careful with such lines of thinking. Self-defense should be protected, and upheld based on principle, and not simply because it was used against someone who may socially detestable.
lost subscribers to their no password sharing policy.
What, we’re just gonna gloss over how absolutely dogshit their in-house “Netflix Originals” media has become?
It’s also because their current shows suck, and because any shows that are actually good get shitcanned after season 2, because Netflix sees less consumer growth after two seasons.
Their saving grace is stuff like Black Mirror but to be fair that didn’t start out as a Netflix original and Charlie Brooker has tight control over his property.
When they started Netflix Originals, they knocked a bunch of them out of the park, now they just make weak trash with bad CGI, costumes, and makeup.
Stuff like 13 Reasons Why or The Witcher are just straight up irredeemable trash.
It’s also because their current shows suck, and because any shows that are actually good get shitcanned after season 2, because Netflix sees less consumer growth after two seasons.
I’m always surprised at how often other people (not you) will defend this practice from Netflix. It’s classic case of following the data in a stupid way. If their data shows that interest drops off after two seasons, I don’t doubt it.
But… that comes with a cost. They have built a reputation as a company that doesn’t properly finish shows that they start, that will leave viewers hanging. That makes it harder to get people invested in a new series, even one that’s well reviewed. Why get interested in something you know will end on a cliffhanger?
That kind of secondary order impact from their decision isn’t going to show up in data. Doesn’t change that it happens all the same.
Just gotta say you fucking nailed it. The long-term knock-on effect of people not wanting to start a new Netflix show only to like it and for it to be cancelled is too real.
That’s sad because it’s absolutely trash. Writing is trash, sets are trash, costumes are trash, makeup is trash, CGI is trash.
Also, super unpopular opinion: Cavill wasn’t a very good Geralt, yet everyone wants to jerk him off like he’s the only saving grace of the show. Nah, he fucking sucks, too.
I’m upvoting you for contributing to the discussion but I have to disagree. I think they did get a lot right with that show. Many of the things you mentioned. That said, the most important stuff, like the story itself, the pacing, the characters failed to hold up. The show started great and didn’t know where to go from there.
I’ll cop to part of that, it definitely had a good start in a lot of ways. CGI and effects in first season were far better, to be sure. Costumes were absolutely panned and changed due to how badly they were panned.
Honestly the first season gets a pass from me cause Henry cavill did a spectacular job even with lacklustre writing. That second season was a step back in every way and after finding out that they’ll continue the series after cavill leaves because the writers are sh*tying on the ip, I just haven’t bothered watching the 3rd season. Nothing their to keep me invested anymore.
Why did it get approved? Because his son is senior manager of unscripted originals!
Also, they have a documentary on the “Blue Zones” where people supposedly live to 100 regularly. This is pseudoscience that has been exposed as poor record keeping for years.
I mean, they employ people who are clearly completely out of touch and don’t give a shit about anything but making money. They don’t care about controversy as long as people are just talking about it and not suing them or bringing legal charges against them.
Ryan Murphy apparently can’t figure out that since nobody wants to talk to him about this that maybe it was a bad idea to begin with. Pretty much all the families and friends of victims thought the whole thing was in incredibly poor taste. Apparently all of them rejecting being involved wasn’t enough to clue Ryan Murphy into this being incredibly offensive to them.
But Netflix doesn’t care about anything but money.
Like when they removed an episode Patriot Act with Hasan Minhaj’s show in Saudi Arabia because they didn’t want to offend anyone.
“We’re not in the news business,” Hastings said at the New York Times’ DealBook conference, per Variety, of the decision to remove the episode after Saudi Arabia threatened legal action. “We’re not trying to do ‘truth to power.’ We’re trying to entertain…We don’t feel bad about that at all.”
Same reason they consulted with suicide prevention organizations on 13 Reasons Why: got told that this show would increase copycat suicides and it was written in a way that glorified suicide, but fuck it, who cares, let’s make some money and throw this up on Netflix!
I’m worried it will end up like Game of Thrones and slowly go off the rails as the series goes on, ending sooner than the original series and botching the ending.
I say this as someone not particularly invested in One Piece, but I know lots of folks who are, and it would be genuinely shitty for the live action to undermine the original. I agree, I hope the quality manages to keep up to the fans expectations and in this instance, they don’t flub it.
Thankfully, the difference is that One Piece is still releasing new chapters regularly, and is apparently in its final arc. So, if nothing changes, the live action will almost certainly not finish before the manga does.
Okay. You could say that if three people left and 8 million could have signed up. It’d be factually true. So?
The comment I replied to was claiming the price hike is because they lost subs because of the password changes. That implies the loss was big enough to reduce their income to the point they needed more. It’s not.
They actually got more subs (in most countries), its just that theyre bloating up, and compeition is happening which atm is making for a better or worse depending on how you look at it, situation for the consumer.
Whenever businesses try to ‘pin’ raising prices of an already profitable product on anything, we know the real justification is this:
“We know people are going to pay it and it will make us more money. That’s why we do it. We’re just saying it’s something else for the useful idiots who think businesses are their friends.”
Go nuts on bluray around black Friday. Be willing to wait to own things til later. Gain interest in movies that flopped. Before you know it you’ll own insane amounts of high quality movies for cheap.
I love history and discoveries like this fascinate me, but do they serve any functional purpose? Does knowing that Babylonians understood angles change anything in my daily or long term life?
Not trying to be critical, just a question I often pose myself but have yet to think of a reassuring answer for.
It might give you new respect for the Babylonians, and act as a corrective to the modern tendency to assume superiority. It might enhance your sense of how similar we all are and how connected, and your kinship with people who lived millennia before you. If little discoveries like this make us just a little more sensitive to the transience of even the most sophisticated societies, the kinship of all people and the sheer length of human history compared to the shortness of our individual lives, it might make us just a little more considerate and respectful in how we treat our world and our peers. The value of such discoveries is their cumulative influence on our understanding of ourselves and how we fit into the world. It makes us wiser.
news
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.