If one wanted to view this material to form their own opinion, where would one go to do this? Obviously this would be only for the purpose of confirming that these allegations are accurate and also deciding whether or not this constitutes any sort of suspendable offense.
Cook’s lack of respect for people and his total disregard of the consequences of his actions is what caused this situation, not paranoia and heavy armament.
I don’t have any sympathy for Cook, nor do i think it’s a bad verdict, but shooting someone is a pretty extreme response to having a phone held near your face/ear for 20 seconds.
It’s a losing battle trying to inject reasonable responses to situations here. Running away is apparently something that is no longer allowed. People somehow think going for violence is always the correct and immediate response to something like this. This place is no better than Reddit for that, there are some bloodthirsty motherfuckers itching to tell someone who is in charge via the point of a gun.
You don’t have a monopoly on reasonableness. Twelve jurors, not Redditors, agreed that the YouTuber was behaving aggressively, and violence is a common response to aggression.
And the YouTuber’s entire shtick is to make people think they might be in danger, by not letting them back away. Because that’s how fights commonly start. If he did the same routine ten feet away from his victims, the whole shtick would fail.
You’re reading into that the wrong way. There was one incompatible charge about firing indoors. Somehow you can be guilty of that without being guilty for shooting someone? That’s almost definitely what the hangup was about and the judge is going to hear arguments for it next month even though it was the only charge they found him guilty for.
Shooting someone, for telling you to given them your wallet, is NOT proportional.
Stabbing someone to death, for trying to mug you at knifepoint, IS proportional.
Stabbing them and dismembering the body afterwards, is NOT proportional.
The main difference, is most European countries have a (mostly) functional police force you can expect to help you deal properly in most conflict situations.
Still, this case “could” be considered proportional if the guy saw the prankster and his friends as potentially assaulting him as a group.
Germany allows you to use “up to” deadly force… if you can argue there was no other way to stop the attacker… and basically with your bare hands, because guns and weapons are way more controlled than in the US.
To have a gun you need to pass not just a criminal check, but also a proficiency test, a fitness test, and then justify a “special need” to own a certain gun. Even carrying a foldable knife can land you in jail before you get a chance to use it for “deadly force”.
On the bright side, you could probably legally run over a thief with your car.
You can have a lot of stuff at home, like a katana, a crossbow, a nail gun, or any sort of airsoft replica gun. You can also carry it in a bag, a backpack, or anywhere else out of easy reach.
The “out of easy reach” part is especially important for paintball, airsoft, archery and hunting enthusiasts; you better make sure that weapon is well packed and hard to reach while carrying it around in public, unless you want it confiscated and land your ass in jail way before you have a chance of using it for self defense.
Within a narrowly defined scope, yes. Pretty sure that with how the case is described here that he would be convicted in a lot of European countries for overstepping the amount of force he’s allowed to use in self defense.
Depends on the country, of course. Some European countries are actually more permissive than the US.
For example, in the US you must have a reasonable fear of great bodily harm to use deadly force. Reasonable means an average person would feel the same way.
But in the UK, any actual fear of great bodily harm justifies deadly force, even if it is not reasonable, ie even if an average person would not have that fear.
Furthermore unlike most US states there is no duty to retreat before using deadly force in the UK, France, Spain or Sweden. This means you can immediately use deadly force when threatened, you don’t need to reserve it as a “last option.”
I see a huge problem. Since it didn’t involve the school. Or violate anyone’s consent. The school should keep their mouth fucking shut unless they have something to actually criticize her for that’s relevant. Such as her ability to teach. Which isn’t what they’re doing.
But as a Missourian our state embarrassing us must mean it’s a day ending in Y.
Hell yeah. We should put all attractive teachers on leave in fact, since high schoolers have a hard enough time navigating society without the added complication of an attractive authority figure thrown in.
In fact, may as well put the ugly ones on leave as well, since those might be some people’s preferences as well.
Eunuchs and robots are out, again might be a kink. Self led learning should go too, since they may be a narcissist and get off on the thought of themselves being in charge.
May as well not teach them, since they may have a learning kink.
Personally I think not enough attention is paid to how community atomization and sprawl, and the near elimination of the third place in America, has fostered a crisis of loneliness.
Young men chronically have no outlets through which they can socially interact with women. The only place it happened was at school and maybe some extracurriculars if they were especially social.
Society unconsciously brushes this crisis off with “well the real friends that matter are the ones you make in college anyways!” Ignoring how that doesn’t help guys that don’t have higher study in their life plan, or the fact that learning to properly socialize is kinda the point of those grade school friends you’ll probably lose touch with in adulthood.
All that was the case even BEFORE the pandemic hit, now even school’s been atomized, granted, rightfully so in the circumstances, with classes going virtual and leaving students in a situation where the Internet is the only place left in the world where they can learn any social skills, and that’s where the damned redcaps and chuds swoop in to prey on their insecurities.
College is for networking, if you go to that kind of school. Yeah, you can definitely make good friends in College, but I also made better friends in high school.
well in my uni, most of the normal clubs (ie - acm) had womens versions which didn’t allow men. Additionally most of the clubs at my school were actually segregated by race/nationality/religion (ie - african students union, korean christian association, muslim student assocation, society of hispanic engineers, etc.). So there were only a few clubs I was actually allowed to join and it they were basically all white males despite not being exclusive like the other ones. Schools fund these clubs so that they can claim they’re supporting diversity and inclusion and sure they’re supporting minority communities, but at the same time I don’t think the results are what they were hoping.
You can make friends anywhere. Many people make them in situations like high school or college but there are other options like church, work, online, clubs, hobbies, bars, etc.
It seems like a stretch to blame society because specific people have poor social skills and can’t attract a mate or friends. Putting them in social situations more common of the past doesn’t mean they’d have any better luck. They lack skills that take trial and error and lots of practice that most other people learn at a young age. I know a couple of guys that could be considered incels and they lack self awareness, refuse to listen to advice, and spend nearly all their time playing games online. If they actively choose not to work at improving their deficiencies, whose fault is that? If someone is morbidly obese yet refuses to eat healthier and instead goes out to McDonald’s for every meal, would you say the same thing? At the end of the day you have to take some responsibility for the situations that you find yourself stuck in. That’s not to say these people deserve it, but we all have our own challenges in life that we must overcome.
Came here to say something similar. Loneliness is the cancer eating our society. I used to feel terribly lonely, even with incredible close friends, around holidays. That translated into feeling lonely much of the time because I was aware there was no one at those special times. Side note: never been an incel or misogynist.
You know, if these schools are going to refuse to pay teachers enough to live on, maybe they shouldn’t be so uptight about where those teachers get their supplemental income from. 😒
An argument I often hear to justify sky-high drug prices is that developing new drugs is incredibly expensive. Additionally, hundreds of millions of dollars are spent on research that simply doesn’t pan out.
What’s a fair way to fund research while still keeping drug costs reasonable?
Much development is being done at public research universities leveraging government grants. Most of what these companies pay for is packaging, marketing, and distribution
This is patently false. Do some research on the clinical development process. Running trials is neither cheap nor easy. You can’t just go from lab to store shelves. You have to run phase 1, 2, and 3 studies to prove it is safe and works.
I’m not arguing against being able to negotiate drug prices, by the way. The government should do that.
I didn’t say that there isn’t publicly funded research. There is both public and private. The claim that private companies do nothing but package and manufacture is not in line with reality, however.
I’ll speak on one from personal experience. I have been on a med most of the last 20 or so years for a chronic illness. I believe the drug hit the market in 1997 and as of 2018 was still making the company 1.7 billion dollars a year. That 1.7 was actually 44% lower than in 2017. Looking briefly now it is finally taking in less than 1 billion a year, but still 800 million. It isn’t dropping in revenue because they lowered the price. It is because other meds have been introduced so they have a lot more competition.
There was even an event where press asked the CEO about having made back their development costs and then some, which he agreed they had, would they then lower the price? He said there was no reason to lower the price as it was a huge revenue source for them.
Over 20 years later the costs for it continued to climb rather than lower. Costs for it estimated at 10k per patient in 1997 and around 70k now per year.
US based companies develop a lot of useful treatments and drugs. Nationalized health systems in Canada, UK and elsewhere end up paying less than US citizens for the same stuff. US innovation and development has essentially subsidized their ability to pay less than we do for things we created. We’d be better served to pass a law that says Britain’s NHS and Canada’s system can’t be sold any US drug for a single penny less than the highest MSRP paid by random US guy with zero insurance. This forces either the drug companies to lower prices for everyone in the market, or at least makes foreign systems subsidize more of the drug development cost.
I’m only keeping D+ for my niece and nephew. If they can’t watch it at home it’ll be time to set up that server I’ve been thinking about and setting up my sister’s computer to access it.
I docked my ship in the early aughts, but it’s time I set sail again
In point of fact, I began puttering around the harbor, and I’m already looking for a bigger boat. Something with a decent hold, since I’ve already acquired a TB, I mean ton, of goods for distribution
I completely disagree with the shutdown. The role of these legislators is to find compromise. But I also have to say that the root of the problem is a massive oversized government we can’t continue to pay for.
The problem with this argument is that everyone has a portion of the government they feel is essential, and another they think isn’t. Deciding what to cut requires compromise, but polarization requires you protect everything you like and cut everything else. Nothing can happen in that scenario.
To summarize our legislative body is completely incapable of doing their job. To a huge extent, we should be bringing in fresh blood. The problem is we’ve allowed money to place such a huge role in politics that the vote is almost inconsequential nowadays.
Yes, but if you’re directly employed by the fed, you will receive back pay. If you receive unemployment pay during that time, you will have to pay it back.
The big issue is people who are employed by a contracting firm and work in federal buildings - they won’t receive back pay when they come back.
This is case-specific on the contract side. Sometimes the contract is funded already and the mission critical workers (like military, critical systems IT staff etc.) will continue working.
And for anyone fomenting tears on behalf of the direct federal workers… Please realize that many of the lifers know and plan for this type of shit and even look forward to it. They will get back pay for however long it lasts so it is essentially a multi week paid vacation for them.
A large number of federal workers view this as a benefit of their mealticket.
(Source: worked in Federal contracting for a while)
True, I did simplify quite a bit. My wife is a lifer federal employee and like you said, we’re well prepared if the gov’t shuts down. Of course we still realize how shit it can be for those who aren’t prepared or won’t get back pay and don’t want that to happen.
news
Newest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.