I think the demographic may not be the correct financially. Though that might be more funny, a bunch of people buying out of spite and then defaulting.
Lol, yeah. Everyone I talk to about my car instantly becomes a weekend road tripper, like they are constantly going on thousand mile road trips to the middle of nowhere where there aren’t any charging stations.
Most people own cars a long time and it’s used for all their trips, around town and crossbcountry. You only have to get stuck somewhere remote once without a way to charge to have a bad time.
Definitely, but it’s much easier to get some gas and bring it back to the car. Lots of people that can help and lots of services to call on. Not impossible but much fewer options for an all-electric.
Don’t discount Elmo Lusk’s cleverness like that, he’ll surely implement, alone with his little capable hands, an aerosol-spraying system to lure in his new clientele; prolly named Make Ozone Holed Again or something. Free canister every month for Xwitter Premium subscribers!
It’ll be the ones you don’t hear about, for example my grandparents who are some of the kindest, most compassionate people you’d meet. They hosted refugees, consistently voted progressive, and changed church when their previous one started being more anti-LGBT. There’s just no headlines in Christians actually acting like Christians.
If my kin are anything to go by, youre never too old to kickass and take names. Hell my great grandfather won his first bout against death, lost the second though.
Because they’re actually following the teachings of the Bible especially the notes on the hypocrites. They just do good, they don’t talk about doing good in places where people will hear them.
Christians have ignored the teachings of Jesus from the start. Just one example: You cannot serve God and money. Matthew 6:24. I think Jesus was a communist who would probably also be crucified today by the people who proclaim to be Christians.
Paul derailed the Church right out of the gate. Here’s a guy who has had an absurd amount of control over the fate of Christianity who never met Christ, and who advocates principles that directly contradict Christ’s own teachings while being very similar to the teaching of the Jewish temple Paul previously held power in as a Pharisee. Paul took Christ’s teachings and merged them into a contemptible, incoherent hybrid of Christ’s message and the Jewish law-focused faith, brought full circle back into a religious bureaucracy by the Roman Catholics.
Leased a tesla MS in 2017 because I knew 250mile battery was not going to be the max in 2020 and guessed 350mile was possible (i was right). Right around then Elon came out as a conspiracy twat, so I was more than happy to turn my car in when he went full right wing twat.
3 years on, I’m the proud owner of an ebike with a few thousand miles on it, created by a company not owned by a twat. My insurance is $50 a month and my uber rides fall far below anything I spent monthly on my insurance and lease payment ($1300 or so). Helps to work from home and live 5 miles from most places I need to go to or from the public transit.
Honestly, had he kept his insane ideas to himself I might still own that car or it’s newer version. I do miss it, but I just can’t support people like that. Also, 3 years on I don’t miss the car payments…
Really happy with the Rad Power Plus series. reasonably priced, 1000 miles and counting on the motor and battery. They seem to be getting a little hate of late for their customer service, but I have a local shop so I don’t see these issues.
Yeah, Europe and UK seem to be cheaper for those things. While I was in Rome I paid €40 for the year, but stayed 2 months. At one time we could get insurance for our petrol car at $59 a month with minimal coverage, now it’s twice that.
That $50 is not all for the bike, I added supplemental coverage to pay for US healthcare in the event of an accident. I have full theft and damage, plus a balloon policy that pays out for medical, accidental death (for2 people). I think it was $120 for just the year on just e-bike, but an accident could cause my heath insurance to not cover due to it being a vehicle in motion accident.
It’s generally understood that sharing child sex abuse materials, regardless of intent, is not only a federal crime in the U.S. and Australia, but re-victimizes the child.
Excuse my ignorance, but why wasn’t this guy arrested? And why is it “news” that X restored his account but an arrest - or even lack of one - wasn’t even mentioned?
Oh look another shooting that basic safe storage laws could have prevented, without even restricting firearm ownership, but ammosexuals still resist them.
How would safe storage laws prevent this? They would just result in another charge for the mother. You really think someone who leaves a gun around with a 6 year old with behavioral issues would lock it up just because of a law?
Bingo they’re just a barrier to entry that negatively effects those of lower income since safes aren’t cheap. Start a program to provide secure no cost safes upon request and I’m with you.
Nobody on the internet can mention safe storage of firearms without an apologists for people who keep guns in a drawer turning up and saying “Lockpickinglawyer”.
LockPickingLawyer is extremely good at picking and bypassing locks. Most children and opportunistic criminals are not.
His channel also showcases the worst locks he can find, because that’s where the views are. In countries with gun laws that actually work, they often have approved safes and locks specifically to ensure they meet a reasonable standard of security.
Millions of Americans keep loaded guns in drawers, glove compartments, closets and naff hidden compartments. The pro-gun community generally turns a blind eye to this and staunchly oppose measures to ensure “responsible gun owners” are actually being responsible.
And the excuse that always pops up eventually is “LockpickingLawyer proves that trying to secure guns with more than threats of domestic violence is a waste of time”.
Trigger locks aren’t secure storage and moreover they’re not $10 every local sheriff’s office I’m aware of will provide a trigger lock or cable lock at no charge no questions asked.
This is just poor logic. Guns themselves cost money, which negatively effects those one lower incomes. Should we provide free guns to anyone that wants one too?
And you know what else negatively effects those on low incomes? Being shot.
Not at all. Guns are often inherited and transferred without fee. And yes in my opinion if you pass a free series of tests on gun ownership/responsibility/safety then yeah, as a militaristic country invasion is almost certainty sooner or later. Should we be militaristic? Probably not but we adjust for the conditions as they are not as we wish them to be.
Correct, systemic issues including fun fact gun control attempts make lower income areas higher crime and thus higher gun crime. Weird huh?
Some states require a trigger lock to be sold along with the weapon. Not as good as a safe but it should prevent accidental discharge. That being said I would support a program to provide no-cost lock boxes (not giant safes) for handguns.
Storage laws are the easiest to abide by, though. My stuff all lives in a safe, which key is on my person, because my dotty wife and ditzy daughter frequently forget to lock the door behind them.
Is an intruder just gonna take the safe and lockboxes? Yep.
Am I gonna report that theft as “lockbox, contained one pistol (SN:xxxxxxxx); loaded magazine, 9 rounds?” You betcha.
As you say, LPL videos are free so a lockbox and safe are like, the least obstructive Imlediments ever. What’s the harm in this Pascal’s wager?
Edit: bah! Wrong reply bug! This was directed to a comment down thread 👇
How would safe storage laws prevent this? They would just result in another charge for the mother. You really think someone who leaves a gun around with a 6 year old with behavioral issues would lock it up just because of a law?
The implication is that you actually enforce the laws after you implement them, rather than just implementing them as a way to add a charge. For example in my country police will come to inspect my house at least once a year to make sure im storing them properly and if a neighbour complains or something they will also make an unschedules checked.
I get American gun owners would take this basic safety precaution as the deepest violation of a tyranical government and would shoot a cop before they let them inspect their home for safety, but my point is if they did agree to sensible safe storage legislation this wouldnt have happened
The boy’s mother, however, Deja Taylor, has been charged with felony child neglect and misdemeanour recklessly leaving a loaded firearm as to endanger a child.
No, its more like they came up with that as a way to punish someone for this act. As far as im aware, there isnt a law describing how guns need to be sotred to keep them away form kids and if there is, it sure as hell isnt enforced.
How do you enforce this other than punishing it when something happens? The police can’t just go into people’s homes to double check that they have their firearms stored safely. People aren’t going to report themselves.
§ 18.2-56.2. Allowing access to firearms by children; penalty. A. It shall be unlawful for any person to recklessly leave a loaded, unsecured firearm in such a manner as to endanger the life or limb of any child under the age of fourteen. Any person violating the provisions of this subsection shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.
B. It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly to authorize a child under the age of twelve to use a firearm except when the child is under the supervision of an adult. Any person violating this subsection shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. For purposes of this subsection, “adult” shall mean a parent, guardian, person standing in loco parentis to the child or a person twenty-one years or over who has the permission of the parent, guardian, or person standing in loco parentis to supervise the child in the use of a firearm.
They just removed restrictions for Brits that were in the UK between 1980-1996 too, so I guess they’re just getting around to opening things up and this was on the list.
I was stationed in UK and couldn’t donate blood as a result. That was only ten years ago. Since they opened it back up I am getting constant calls to donate.
Why? AIDS was a devestating epidemic. The blood banks were slow to act at all, and as a result many haemophiliacs acquired the disease and died. Gay men were the largest risk group for spreading and contracting it, so it makes sense to screen them out.
It made sense in a crisis situation 40 years ago. It made zero sense the last few years to have such a discriminatory rule that also neglected to prevent risk from heterosexual anal sex.
In my country gay men account for 90% of all HIV infections. It’s very hard to ensure blood is free of HIV, as blood is infectious within three months of infection but won’t test positive
Under the new guidelines, anyone who has recently had sex with a new partner or multiple people and has also had anal sex would have to wait three months to donate
Those taking oral medication to prevent HIV infection, called pre-exposure prophylaxis, or PrEP, still have to wait three months from their last dose to donate blood. People taking long-acting PrEP injections have to wait two years before donating.
Sometimes I think he was pissed at the jet tracker and being told off so much, he bought twitter to shut ot down. But dont want to make it look intentional so he doesn’t have a major labor lawsuit for putting everyone at twitter out of work.
Again, it has been screenable for decades. Just like many other blood-borne diseases. Why single out HIV as if it is impossible to filter out of the supply?
Why single out HIV as if it is impossible to filter out of the supply?
Screening accuracy is lightyears better today than it was decades ago.
Also, many things on the screening test won’t kill you in the event of a false negative on screening. A false negative for HIV screening meant a certain death sentence for the recipient, and that was true until just a few years ago.
Why single out HIV
HIV never was ‘singled out’. There are numerous other behaviors and activities that disqualify a potential donor that have nothing to do with HIV.
“Singled out” implies that that it stood alone as the only behavior that was screened for. But that’s not the case. There always have been and still are numerous other behaviors and activities screened for and denied.
No, ‘singled out’ means they made a special exception for it that they made for nothing else. They didn’t even ask if you had HIV, just if you had gay sex, as if you can’t get HIV from heterosexual sex. It was never about HIV, it was about marginalizing gay people once again. And you’re excusing it. Shameful.
They made special exceptions for people who live or travel to specific regions, they made special exceptions for people who have received certain medical procedures, they made special exceptions for needle-based drug users, they made special exceptions for people who’ve gotten tattoos or piercings, they made special exceptions for other sexual behaviors like paying for sex. You do know what the definition of the word “singled” means, yeah? It means “single” - as in “one”. They didn’t single out just that one behavior.
Yet again- they only asked if you had gay sex. They didn’t ask if you had sex. HIV can be transmitted through any kind of sex. Are you really not aware of that? Because if you are aware of that, why just ask about gay sex?
It’s a bit more complicated than that. In the early years of the HIV epidemic they at first didn’t even want to screen donors. The blood banks and the FDA were slow to introduce screening for a few reasons, one being that gay men were such good donors that a large proportion of the blood supply would have been removed. Eventually the risk became too great and do screening was introduced, just like we exclude those who were in Britain when TSEs were a risk. Note that these restrictions also never applied to lesbians, because they are not a high risk group.
40 years ago contracting HIV was still a serious, life threatening event. It’s also true that in the USA homosexual men represented one of the largest risk groups, unlike in Africa where other factors made spread between heterosexuals more common. It took hold in the gay male community due to the higher risk of anal sex, the popularity of bath houses, and the amount of sex men were having basically. Testing for HIV was also expensive. You could do it at the batch stage to reduce testing, but then you throw away a lot of blood. It’s only recently that PreP is widely available and used, so that HIV is more manageable (though it is still a serious illness).
My source for most of this is And The Band Played On, which apart from being one of the saddest books I ever read, outlines well the inaction by politicians, medical funding bodies, and even within the gay community itself, in tackling the epidemic. That it was allowed to happen is a black mark on the Reagan presidency.
A false negative for HIV screening meant a certain death sentence for the recipient, and that was true until just a few years ago.
Are you for fucking real? Don’t pretend it’s not still a life shattering disease.
You can’t just say, “oh well, it’s not as bad as it used to be.” There’s a vast spectrum between “it won’t kill you” and “it’s a total nothingburger” (wow, does that ever sound familiar). Now you’re immunocompromised, something you definitely do not want in this day and age. Now you risk passing it onto partners and children. Now your quality of life is degraded decades earlier than it otherwise would be.
Now imagine you contracted it, not because you voluntarily engaged in behaviors and you knew the risks, but because you received life-saving medical care. Then imagine learning it might have been prevented if the organization responsible was concerned with pandering to sexual identity politics than ensuring product safety.
This is, and has always been, about safety. Screening has improved. Research has provided more data on prevention and monitoring. They wouldn’t have changed the policies otherwise.
So…you agree with my position that Red Cross had good reason for the ban for the past several decades but choose to attack me because my argument wasn’t vicious enough? I think you arguing with the wrong person here, tbh.
Shit, you know what, I think I may have over-interpreted your phrasing to mean that HIV is no big deal because it’s no longer a short term death sentence.
They phrased it “men who have sex with men” because that was - and is - undeniably a huge risk factor in the transmission of HIV. It was an unprecedented public health emergency and I don’t think people nowadays quite understand how severe it was. Which is great, really, we’ve come such a long way.
Communication infrastructure was nothing like it is today either, there was a real absence of information and people were extremely scared, especially gay men watching their friends die. A blanket ban was the only sane thing to do in the circumstances.
Did it need to persist so long, perhaps not, but even 20 years ago AIDS was much less preventable and treatable than it is today. And the gears of bureaucracy turn extremely slowly at the best of times.
As someone else has pointed out, this is far from the only group excluded from the donor pool. It’s not a moral judgment, just a screening heuristic at the demographic level. That’s how things have to operate at the level of public services; i.e. population-level policy.
I agree. As I said in another comment, the book And The Band Played On is a great history of the AIDS epidemic in the USA and really hammers home just how devestating it was to gay men. It’s a fact that gay men are the major risk group in the West for HIV transmission. Heterosexual sex is much less likely to spread it compared to anal sex. There was a lot of mismanagement of it, but screening was a good idea, when it was finally introduced.
Not really, it specifies “new partners,” which is completely fair. People lie, and it allows time for symptoms to show up so the red cross doesn’t end up wasting resources. I don’t really know how they’d work out polycules unless they add a monogamous restriction. The three months it’s about safety since they are dealing with blood.
Theoretically, it applies to everyone. The anti-sodomy laws also technically applied to everyone, but were only enforced against the LGBT community.
It is good that now they will at least screening those who have heterosexual intercourse, but most MSM still won’t be able to donate with the various restrictions. Only MSM in a long-term relationship will be able to donate.
I can understand the biological reason for not allowing certain medications to avoid complications. However, they could still take blood and just keep it separate just as plasma centers that take MSM plasma do. If there really is a shortage, they should be taking everything being offered.
For a lot of these people their (secular) religion is erasing real-world group differences. The fact that you can (whatever your sexual orientation) regularly engage in anal sex, and therefore be at a higher-risk of contracting STIs for physiological reasons, and therefore not be eligible to donate blood—and still be a good person is beyond their ability to square.
If we value your personhood equally then there must be no substantive physiological differences between you and anybody else.
Yes, it’s entirely about what you do, not what you are. Nothing to do with identity, only practice. This seems to be very hard for younger people to grasp, because increasingly society seems to conflate the two. That’s not particularly meant as an accusation, just an observation.
He was a homophobe and a racist, so yes. He was conservative. I’m not sure how you could miss that part considering it was the whole point of the article.
Ehh not necessarily. I’d say typically that’s the case, but I’ve met old style liberals that are transphobes before. It’s not typical but it occurs. Just seems seems weird to draw the conclusion that he’s conservative from the article when it isn’t mentioned anywhere that he’s conservative. Hell he could even be libertarian as far as we know.
news
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.