Holy shit. I didn’t know about this. That shit needs to be removed. If not by due process of law, then by citizen activists working under cover of night.
I had ZERO idea what Stone Mountain was when we went there.
I’m from NJ, and my partner and I alternate which family we spend the holidays with, and her family is in Georgia. One Christmas we went down and they brought us there at night, and I thought it was fine.
Little shops, a train ride with Christmas lights and food places. Nice little “Christmas village” vibe. I thought it was like a state park or something.
My partner was looking at Christmas ornaments and there were ones that said “Stone Mountain” etc and then I saw a bunch of Christian ones. Like Baby Jesus in a manger… and I thought it was weird that a government park like that had religious stuff in it, and that’s when the cracks started to show.
Then I googled it once we got home, and holy crap!
I live in GA. Doctor’s offices play Christian music, there are Let’s Go Brandon bumper stickers everywhere, confederate flags on many houses, and an inappropriate amount of religious material in government buildings.
Russia has filled huge swaths of Ukraine with mines and I doubt Russia will be sending Ukraine their records (lol) of where the fields are after the war. The minefields created by Russia’s war of conquest will be an ongoing issue in the country for decades.
Assuming Ukraine wins the war, we will likely see a large rebuilding effort, which will necessarily include getting the majority of these cleared out.
And here we see the continued shift away from China. They just aren’t as price competitive as they used to be, their horrid demographics make them a terrible long-term investment, and there is always the off possibility they decide to invade Taiwan and any investments in the country just poof.
I wouldn’t call this a shift. 400 millions is not that much in this industry.
There has been a wave of diversification, but it mostly has to do with security implications and political pressure. So far none of the new investments are for anything top of the line so Taiwan still has monopoly on top-line production.
It’s neat how when people talk about January 6, there’s no such thing as domestic terrorism in our laws. How it’s an unfortunate blind spot and why we have to give the insurrectionists lenient sentences. There’s Nothing We Can Do.
Abortion? Well, that’s different. Domestic terrorists, duh. Open and shut.
I’m confused here, this isn’t the FBI going after activist…this is the FBI looking into groups firebombing anti-abortion places. This article is bullshit and I hope this place doesn’t become/r/politics, this post should be really removed as it’s not the GOP pushing for this…hell it’s bidens FBI right now, the GOP doesn’t have much pressure they can put on them otherwise they’d have pulled the plug on the trump investigations.
Seriously read the bullshit clickbait article before you comment people.
turns out the GOP is pushing for it. from the article… “As vice chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee and then-ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, respectively, both of which oversee the FBI, Rubio and Grassley were both in a position to influence bureau leadership, and it appears the bureau listened.”
I mean no they didn’t, the writer just comes to that conclusion even after the data and their own reference expert says nothing to the effect.
While the report doesn’t say how many of these incidents were motivated by support for reproductive rights and how many were anti-abortion
“only after the outcry from the pro-life community did the FBI announce an investigation” into Jane’s Revenge — a small group of activists that firebombed an anti-abortion pregnancy center on June 7, 2021 — and that the attorney general “has yet to launch a wider DOJ investigation.”
Again, the report does not specify what proportion of the cases are motivated by support for reproductive rights or anti-abortion views.
Yea you keep telling everyone that, because it sounds like you don’t have a ton of solid evidence, of which you contradict your own source.
“I think there has been a big push in right-wing media to drum up a fear of pro-choice violence, like they did with ‘Antifa,’” German said. “Agents are probably influenced by it.”
So did Rubio influence it or the right wing media…I mean he’s the expert they’re using for their info and then coming to a different conclusion.
The FBI’s abortion-related terrorism investigations jumped from three cases in the fiscal year 2021 to 28 in 2022
Yes all this info and the writer comes up with 2 republicans who one of which sits on the Senate Intel committee…the other on the judiciary committee…what they don’t want to tell you is that Warner a Democrat holds the chair, and that the republicans on that committee are not driving the agenda…again it’s bidens FBI… what’s more interesting is that the uptick is from 3 to 28 cases…not 50-100 to 1k…no 3 to 28…take it however you want, but this article is bullshit scare tactics designed to stroke egos of prochoice Dems. (I’m prochoice btw)
Where can we find the ‘guidelines for bots’ as stated in #3, “Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.” ? It would be good to have a link to those guidelines in the Rules.
Biased title. Why should gender matter in law? This is a blatant attempt to tug at emotions. And they try to focus on '31 grams' instead of 'a year's supply'. Take that clickbait back to reddit.
It’s Associated Press, there’s an actual news article in the link that you can read that tells the story, plus the headline isn’t even clickbait, it’s literally telling you what happened. I’m confused as to why you would think saying what happened is clickbait? Could you elaborate?
My original comment contains details from the article, so I'm not sure why you think I haven't read it.
Why I find the headline objectionable:
Emphasis on gender. Why does it matter that she's female, or how long is it's been since the last woman was executed? Is it any more or less significant / objectionable than a man being sentenced to the same thing? It's not trying to make some sort of analysis about gender trends, so I can only assume it's a device to invoke emotions.
Choice of wording about the quantity. 'A year's supply' would have made it very obvious to anybody browsing that this was not a casual user. Instead they went with the less accessible amount in grams, which makes it seem to those unfamiliar with drugs like it was a tiny bust.
Combined, the headline seems to be pushing a specific agenda, which I find deplorable (the covertness, not the agenda).
The emphasis on gender is simply a state of fact; most women are trafficked into this kind of work against their will, so she literally is a victim here and being executed for it. We all have emotions, unless you’re a zombie you will feel for something in this world. You can not enact the “emotions” excuse for any article that tells a deeply troubling or terrible story or describes a terrible event happening that shouldn’t happen
No one is arguing here she’s the user, she’s the victim of trafficking. The quantity described comes from the backwards organization doing the executions to begin with, so it’s irrelevant what the quantity is, it could be 50000 millenia worth of heroin, she has no choice to do this work
Basic human rights is an agenda we can all get behind, and I would certainly hope we push more of it into countries like Singapore to get them to stop abusing fundamental human rights
That's fair. If that were the case here, or if she had made any such claim, I'd agree the title would then be fitting. However, since it's not mentioned, I'll point out that you're making assumptions based solely on the headline, and hence proving my point about the wording influencing people in specific ways.
Are you an incel by any means? Because clearly if its a women, the title will obviously be that. If it was a man, it wouldve been that. Keep your incelish shit somewhere else man.
It's incelish to point out a headline is exploiting gender politics for clicks? Ok.
I'm not sure you know what an incel is, BTW. Here's the definition for your reference: "a member of an online community of young men who consider themselves unable to attract women sexually, typically associated with views that are hostile towards women and men who are sexually active."
Now tell me which part of my statement is hostile towards women, or in any way at all related to sexuality. You're merely using the term as a hammer against viewpoints you disagree with.
I think unless there’s a demonstrable factual inaccuracy in an article or if the source is on the blacklist a post shouldn’t be removed under rule 2. One person’s obvious ____ wing source is another person’s unbiased reporting.
I also think there should be some kind of notice when a site gets added to the blacklist where you lay out your reasoning and users can either challenge or support the decision.
I’m not trying to support the spread of misinformation and there are definitely some publications out there I don’t think anyone should ever read again, but this kind of rule can get out of control quickly and can create a lot of bitterness and chaos in a community if it’s not handled carefully imo.
We’ll try to be reasonable with which sites we ban, but we are not perfect. So we invite discussion in the comment section of the blacklist post.
We would love to do that, but we simply don’t have the time. As mentioned, we won’t delete the posts that have url’s in the blacklist automatically, so when you get the message of the bot, and you find it unreasonable, you can discuss it with us.
Ah, I must have missed the part about things not being automatically deleted, that makes all this feel a bit better.
We would love to do that, but we simply don’t have the time
That is totally fair, and thank you for all the time you already spend on this! So long as the blacklist is in the sidebar or some other prominent place that’s a reasonable time saving compromise.
I would suggest editorializes titles from the journalist themselves or even opinion journalism be removed. There is a lot of articles that get posted as factual but they’re literally just twisted titles that no one reads and it spreads disinformation because the journalist is editorializing the titles just to get clicks from their base.
Singapore hanging its weight on an antiquated, inhumane justice system while the world evolves towards rehabilitative models is downright disturbing. Death penalties for drug offenses are an archaic, blunt instrument to tackle a complex issue, punishing the vulnerable pawns rather than the kingpins of the trade.
So? Singapore doesn’t want any drugs in the country, and put up draconian laws. Just don’t break those laws.
If I tell you that I will brutally murder you if you come to my house wearing a red tie, and you do that… Your death is at least partly on you. Because you had absolutely no good reason to do that.
There is absolutely no positive outcome to selling or consuming heroin. Just don’t do it. It’s not a hard rule to follow…
Well that is an interesting point of view to be sure… I would say the onus of the death lays entirely on the person deciding to apply monumental force against a petty issue.
That’s because that’s literally exactly what this commenter is stating, and nothing else. They leave a reasonable person no choice but to judge them as bloodthirsty and heartless
First of all, it was a private company that had a 10 year contract with the Mali government. Socond, it expired on July 17 and Mali is now back in control of them. So in this case Mali government actually have acess to these emails now.
And that company was Dutch. From what I remember, the US military was not very responsive to the news that this company had tracked thousands of emails that were supposed to go to .mil addresses.
news
Newest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.