musk is clearly a russian sympathizer, if not asset, as has been documented time and time again among conservatives/fascists.
But this is pretty much the same verbiage that NATO has been using the entire time. We want to help Ukraine but don’t want to escalate.
Assuming anyone cares enough to investigate this, that will hold up as far as the international crimes thing goes. Whether The Pentagon is cool with this is a very different discussion.
Obviously not the way you are implying but… kind of? There is a long history of us actively letting russia do whatever they want so as to not escalate things. Like… when russia invaded and stole the Crimea a few years back. Or even the weeks leading up to the war where we all assumed Ukraine would be steamrolled and we would just be supporting an insurgency… rather than watching them time and time again push russia’s shit in.
I don’t think it is active malice and sabotage. It is more just the nature of NATO not wanting to actually have to get involved in any wars. But being expected to be the first line of defense.
Well yeah, it’s a defensive alliance. So it’s general policy is “do whatever you want, but if you attack a member we will seriously fuck you up!”
It’s situation where there’s no legal obligation for NATO to help (though there is a bit more of an obligation for the US help because of separate treaty with Ukraine in the 90s) but there is a moral obligation to help. And of course it’s in the national interest of the members of NATO to help, which is what matters. So NATO’s stance of not wanting to escalate the war is understandable. They will help but don’t want to be drawn into direct combat which is what they mean when they say “escalation.”
But Elon Musk is not really supposed to be a player on the international stage. If the Pentagon or NATO requested him to disable Starlink to disrupt an op, ok they’re the ones that will have to deal with whatever fallout there is from doing or not doing anything like that. But Elon Musk is an impulsive idiot and shouldn’t be in a position to make these kinds of decisions.
Can we please shut the fuck up about this “it is a defensive alliance” nonsense? That was only ever used to justify leaving the Ukrainians to die.
We have invaded plenty of countries for much less. It is humanitarian aide when there are resources we want and “we are a defensive alliance” when there aren’t. Simple as that.
Which countries did NATO invade again? There’s the operations after the break-up of Yugoslavia but that was largely a Peacekeeping operation. Do you consider that to be an invasion?
Afghanistan was most certainly an invasion. That happened because one of NATO’s members (US) was attacked. Yes NATO will invade countries when a member has been attacked.
Sure there’s no-fly zones and some airstrikes conducted by NATO, but in terms of outright invasions, it’s just Afghanistan which was in response to a member being attacked. Because it’s a defensive alliance.
Immigration and immigrants are the backbone of America and always have been. The way Republicans use them as political pawns is sick, xenophobic, and racist.
Immigration improves economies and jobs and the immigrant’s own lives. When handled in the right way (as New York is attempting to do) they can be a huge net positive on their communities and America at large.
Growing pains are inevitable. But if Republicans are too bigoted or stupid to take advantage of willing workers, Democrats entirely should.
Conan was awesome and I thought it couldn’t get any better. But then came Craig and he was in a league of his own. He reinvented the genre and nobody was able to copy him since.
It was a privilege to have lived through and watch both of them in their prime.
I think he’s said he never wanted the earlier time slot because the network would be too involved with the show.
“Tonight Show with Craig Ferguson” would just be like what Tonight Show has been for many decades with just the few flourishes here and there that the network would allow Ferguson to do.
With the 12:30 slot he could do whatever he wanted, the network didn’t care. Which is what made his show the best talk show of all time.
It confuses me that nations open up their doors to immigrants without first building more infrastructure so that both the immigrants and citizens can live together comfortably.
Folks, the website logo has the nazi black sun symbol. Not to mention the site being called “nationalisti” and having “politically incorrect” as the subtitle.
Don’t give them your traffic. Report the user, they seem to be promoting it, see their post history.
There is strong gerrymandering going on there. That form of vitoing ensures the most extreme rise to the top since the other views never have enough votes to tip an election.
Sure, but DeSantis won a statewide election, unaffected by gerrymandering. So even though FL’s congress has more extreme people because of that, they’re not the only ones who enacted this law. They didn’t have to elect a fascist as a state, but they did.
Saying that, I do feel bad for the Floridians who didn’t vote for him and get fucked over because of this. But anyone who voted for DeSantis deserves whatever they get from his cruel actions.
I don’t understand the US thing about trying children as adults. The whole thing about children is that they’re not adults, what’s the point of having specific laws to protect children if you’re just going to ignore them? What possible argument could there be that a 11 year old is an adult?
It doesn’t matter, he still killed his mother and that is the reason why he’s being tried.
The fact that he’s a kid and did that makes the case more ironclad in the eyes of most: he’s clearly a bad seed so he must be gotten rid of now to protect the lives and rights of everybody else.
Oh lol at you comparing some spoiled kid who killed his own mother to neurodivergent people as if that isn’t blatantly ableist and insulting as fuck.
Also you need to learn empathy and to start seeing things from the other side. The safety of everyone else is more important than this kid’s feelings because he killed an innocent person unjustifiably. That fact does not change because he is a kid. He is now a threat to the community, and you’ve no right to demand the community subvert its own right to existence just to appease your wack-ass sensibilities.
His punishment has to put him in jail where he’ll be removed from society and still retain some rights. It’s the only fair and just way.
This is a kid, it’s an accident, a tragic one.
This is you sympathizing with the wrong person and not caring about anyone other than yourself and you making yourself look good at the expense of literally everyone around you.
What are you under the impression will happen if he’s charged as a minor and convicted? Like, what do you think the normal sentence is for minors convicted of first degree murder in Wisconsin?
Do you think the kid even fully understands the concept of dead? It’s funny because in my country children under 14 are not responsible for their actions, the parents are.
That woman died for her own incompetence, the kid was just the vehicle of her demise. Yes sometimes genuinely evil people are born, but in these cases their upbringing is the entire reason for antisocial conduct.
I don’t think he should be charged as an adult but I think there’s a gap wider than my mom’s ass between “charged as an adult” and “it’s an accident just let him go”. Even if you didn’t intend to kill someone pointing a gun at them and pulling the trigger isn’t an accident. There needs to be an intervention here, both for the health of the kid and the safety of other people. This isn’t a whoopsiedoodle, he was mad so he shot at her.
I agree, appropriate action should be taken. Just what exactly falls into that bucket though?
You can’t put an 11 year old in jail for man slaughter (I would call it that, not murder). Juvi? I really am not qualified enough to know my ass from a hole in the ground here.
following the law as written for an 11 year old defendant would be a good start. I’ll admit to also being unqualified but I don’t need to know exactly what point a person is fully competent to be treated as an adult by the judicial system to know that an 11 year old hasn’t reached that point just like I don’t need to know the exact coordinates of the Mexico-US border to know that I, as someone in Pennsylvania, haven’t crossed it.
Isn’t that the point of the calling someone a “minor”, though? Decision making capacity isn’t all there yet, higher chance of the stupid, believing you can fly, that sort of thing.
The article said he was aiming for the wall behind the mom. Maybe he thought he was some kind of ace combat special forces or something because of the VR headset stuff.
Would you put the neurodiverse into a gas chamber for being a burden on society, too?
It’s honestly hilarious that you’re equating random NDs with a child that murdered his own mother and then ordered a VR headset on her Amazon account a day later.
Wow, you guys must have a very shallow understanding of what “childhood” and “justice” mean if the culprit being less responsible for their actions make the case more ironclad.
Edit: nvm I’ve looked at your profile after seeing some of your unhinged comments here ; I now fully believe you are eleven yourself and under the delusion that you are, in fact, an adult.
Edit: nvm I’ve looked at your profile after seeing some of your unhinged comments here ; I now fully believe you are eleven yourself and under the delusion that you are, in fact, an adult.
And yet here you are arguing with me as an adult and wanting me gone as one, regardless of my actual age, so what are you doing except proving my point exactly?
Why though ? They’re not an adult, and rape is depressingly common in children.
Edit: maybe instead I should focus on the core absurdity of it all: isn’t saying “a 17 year old rapist should be tried as an adult” the same as saying “the laws concerning rape in children 17 and above should be the same as the laws concerning adult rapists”?
Because in this second case you ensure that all children be given the same rights under the law and you get the same severity for 17 year olds for crimes you decide warrant it, rather than a shoddy “hmmm I think this crime is heinous enough to preemptively strip this person from their rights before we even decide on guilt and stuff and maybe the judge will agree”.
They basically are, we have Romeo and Juliet laws for recognizing that under 18 people are able to consent (with themselves, obviously) so the legal framework for recognizing that a minor can make adult decisions is there. We all understand that maturity is not a binary, and teens can be expected to act like an adult (such as driving), and that comes with adult responsibility.
Me, personally, I think if a minor commits a crime with mature motivations, they can be tried as an adult.
isn’t saying “a 17 year old rapist should be tried as an adult” the same as saying “the laws concerning rape in children 17 and above should be the same as the laws concerning adult rapists”?
I suppose, although the latter would be codifying the principle
It’s obviously a topic that requires nuance, but I do believe there are circumstances where it fits.
The thing is the motion to be tried as an adult comes before the trial, so it comes before you ascertain anything about motivations, intent, psychological expertise…
I think this whole thing goes with the whole drinking, enlisting in the army, voting… You guys have a legal definition of childhood that’s way fuzzier that I’m used to. In my head, a motivation isn’t mature or not intrinsically, it’s mature or not depending on who has it : if it’s a child it’s not, if it’s an adult it should be so it’s considered as such.
I guess having a hard limit on the eighteenth birthday is weird in its own right… Maybe it’s because I’m old but in my head it should be fuzzy in the other direction: 18 year olds are definitely still kids in most aspects and should get a chance to be tried as children.
As abbotsbury said, it needs nuance. I am not good at that but I want to discuss, so I’ll write it below.
Mainly your point that 18+ year olds don’t have mature thinking patterns in some cases if not many: I’ve read that 25 years of age is when our brains basically start solidifying (I’m forgetting the actual term) and is why alcohol is recommended against until that age, but even that’s actually supposed to be fuzzy because aging isn’t a clear cut thing and brains and bodies age entirely differently so maybe if some kind of regulations should be set it should be between 16-27 for trial as adults if the need is felt with the cut-off for such judgements being less lenient as their age gets closer to the limit ^((or more lenient, I’ve confused myself in how this should be worded)^)
Then again this is for a justice system which is not focused on reparations through punishing the preparator instead of corrective measures and trying to create a society where crimes are less likely (equitable society, or a healthier outlook for mental and physical health, etc)
American political culture has a strong vein of demanding everyone be “tough on crime”, in the entirely mistaken belief that crime comes from not being harsh enough in sentencing. We also know that eleven year olds aren’t fully competent adults and we have carve outs in juvenile law that reflect that obvious truth. The intersection of these two facts means that charging decisions on cases like the above depend as much on what the actual right way to charge is as they do on how much what the kid did frightens the general public. What that tends to end in is laws that say you can only charge a minor as an adult in exceptional cases and then a push to make every minor charged with a violent crime the exception.
Alright I can see how culturally you end up going in that direction.
Still, though, I can’t fathom someone being smart enough to go through all that education to become a state prosecutor, then seeing a terrible story about a kid have access to a gun when they clearly shouldn’t and killing their own mother through sheer childish stupidity and then coming to the conclusion that “you know what would reestablish justice in this situation? Injecting poison into that kid and watching him die.”
Who’s that person? What happened in their life to make them think like that?
I've generally figured that they're to the right of talkRadio, which is in turn to the right of Sky News, which if ofc owned by News Corp which owns Fox News (is it weird that I know this?), but I haven't gotten a handle on their general positions yet.
No? Fallon is like one of the most successful comedians alive today. That a bunch of internet forum users don’t find him funny does not change the facts that the dude is widely popular.
Personally he’s not my favorite comic but he’s in the club of comedy legends. Plus, Andy Samberg is the failed Andy Samberg.
Even as someone who loves really spicy foods, I think the ever-escalating spicy trend is getting ridiculous. After a certain point you don’t taste anything and its just a dumb one-upsmanship contest.
Same. Also some people just don't seem to be able to identify any flavor beneath the heat.
My limit is this one Asian food place in Houston. I got some chicken that I didn't realize was hot. Me and my coworkers go back to the office (a very large room). I open that to go box and everyone in the room choked from the heat of just the smell. It was strong even from the other side of this room that's probably 80x80ft room with 40ft ceilings.
I was crying, sweating, turning red, nose running everything. Everybode else was getting a little bit of bloodshot eyes.
Of course then everyone tried convincing me to eat the pepper itself. Ain't no way.
When I was finished we wraped it in like 3 plastic bags and took it outside and down the sidewalk and put it in a trashcan there.
But that was some damn good chicken. 5 stars, would suffer again.
This is an extreme example. Plenty of other things out there are just a dumb pissing contest to see who can make the hottest sauce, wings, chip, ribs, etc.
I looove hot and spicy foods and refuse to take part in any of that nonsense.
People look at me like I’m crazy and I have to explain that, yes, I like hot and spicy flavors but that doesn’t mean I’d eat a spoonful of godamn lava.
I enjoy watching people do it though and always offer to buy drinks for someone who does it, lol.
It’s not really sold as a food. It’s sold as a game. That’s why it’s called the “one chip challenge”. You’re supposed to eat it and then hold out as long as possible without driving something to sedate the burn.
It’s also not that spicy. Last time I had it, I was mostly coughing from the stale chip and dry, powdery seasoning. The heat itself didn’t bother me. Their regular sized bags of chips were way spicier to me.
I’m tired of restaurants basically wafting a Carolina Reaper over their salsas or sauces and advertising their barely-jalapeno-grade garbage as being particularly spicy. One drop of extract in a bulk batch of sauce for a restaurant does not make it spicy, but it certainly lets vanilla consumers with no real tolerance feel like they’re able to take actual heat from real peppers.
I love spicy food and I’ve done the One Chip Challenge just for the thrill, but it’s not really done as a “food” any more than skydiving is done for transportation. It arguably shouldn’t be sold to minors, but it’s actually hot, not just marketing, and arguably is more responsible for creating the trend in the first place than jumping on the bandwagon later. The Challenge has been sold for a long time.
I think Popeyes or Wendy’s was advertising some ghost pepper sandwich recently and it was decent and had a little bit of a kick, but it was far from being hot. Same thing with various “hot” chips.
If it is a mass market brand I have very low expectations when it comes to spice level. If it had the slightest vit of a kick, I’m surprised.
Let me understand. You are an american soldier, torture and kill war prisoners, 6 months and disonorably discharge. You kill 200.000 people and you are a war hero ( Oppenheimer ). You rape two american women, 30 years? And the world should follow american ethics?
Reality is that westerners are huge hypocrites, they see the rest of the world as less human, and below their own race. so such triple standards aren’t surprising.
news
Newest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.