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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
He told one co-worker the trip was for a family emergency and used “shushing” emojis, the court documents allege.
This reads like that Eli Manning SNL sketch where his murder alibi is that he was at home sending horny texts. So funny to read out emojis in a court document.
“I’m not afraid of anybody,” Gibson said. “But do I want to get out of this house and go fishing and do any of that stuff around here anymore? Hell to the no.”
No Offence but this is how racism wins, this end result was entirely what the racist wanted and they got it. They don’t have to lynch you to kick you out of a neighborhood, just mildy harrass you to the point where a person self segregates and then what? I mean the end goal is the same for the racist at the end of the day. Don’t give them the satisfaction
You're asking someone being harassed and threatened to keep fighting and deal with it. It's not on the victim to beat their abusers. It's on society to stop the abusers. That town should be arresting the racists for harassment but since the cops are likely supporting the racists, an ACLU lawyer should be stepping in pro-bono to sue the shit out of these people/department. Unfortunately it's rarely that easy to affect systemic change.
They’re not asking the victim anything, they just made a statement of fact that when we bow to the bully, they get their way.
You’re right that the town should be stepping up. But, the reality is that most of them are republicans and would not piss on him if he was on fire, let alone step up to support him. So all that remains as options are to fight back (I think his current tack is the best one), move away, or isolate. Feels like you shot the messenger (OP) here.
You’re right about he fighting part, not about the “deal with it” part. I’m not sure how you equate one with the other. If we don’t fight back against racism, then that is “dealing with it”. Fighting back is what I just said to do.
In general, yes. If you’re getting harassed and threatened and you want that to change, you should fight and deal with it. Nobody ever won anything by simply rolling over for anyone who was mean to them. Worse than that, society probably won’t support you if you do, even if they should.
It’s up to the individual how strongly they want to fight for it, of course, but I certainly wouldn’t discourage them from doing so.
This is literally victim blaming. What if he “stood up for himself” and was shot by a cop. What a win for him! What if he was best by a mob?
If someone pulls a gun on you should you fight them? A knife? A bat? A brick? A dirty needle? I’m mentioning this because people seem to understand immediate bodily harm and how it’s perfectly acceptable to keep yourself safe. However somehow when you have to make the active decision to expose yourself to bodily harm then suddenly if you don’t you’re coward and part of the problem.
All the while, no one is talking about how people with nothing to lose to stand up to the abusers aka the person judging the victim for keep themselves safe. If they really thought it was a great idea they’d do it themselves. They’d confront the harassers and give them the proper shunning and verbal redress they deserve, but that never happens. All that happens is people with no skin in the game talk about how others should risk their personal safety and livelihoods for some principle the victim doesn’t want to stand for.
It’s up to him to judge his own situation and make his own decisions. There are many different ways besides physical to fight and struggle against something. Basically the only thing that does nothing is giving up entirely.
Call it victim blaming if you like. It would be lovely if society at large sprung to assist those who are wronged. But that’s not what happens in reality, as I see it.
Unlike the moon being made of cheese I gave actual real situations. I agree that everyone has to judge if they want to fight or not, but it’s not up to people who will never be impacted by a situation to have that opinion.
I say this as a black person who has been punched by a cop as a teen. As a black person who had my house raided for no reason. As a black person who has watched my family carried away for no reason. Whose grandmother was put in federal prison for helping fund the civil rights movement and was nearly denied a security clearance because most of my family is considered domestic terrorists because of the Civil rights movement. I have a lot more to add to the stack.
I’ve spent my whole ass life advancing safety for my people, but no I would not go purposefully to an area where I would be harmed. That’s why I take offense for judging that man for making that decision. It’s doubtful you’ve ever had to make such a decision and if you could have helped you wouldn’t have because as you said outsiders don’t help. Stop judging people for not taking steps you never would.
Perhaps you should take a moment to reflect on if your words are callus towards the people who are affected. You can think that I’m talking at you or taking meaning that isn’t there, but you’re on the side of people who arr advocating for risking their safety. It doesn’t matter of you didn’t say it, it matters that you contradicting me and another person who say that person was wrong.
Context matters, especially ok a platform that doesn’t put focus on users, but words. Your words will add to the context and not be just your words. That is what I’m arguing against. You addition to te context because you are saying that victims should risk themselves based on nothing but where you chose to interject yourself.
BTW, I didn’t vote one way or another on your posts. Those downvotes came organically.
BTW, I didn’t vote one way or another on your posts. Those downvotes came organically.
I don’t care if you do or not. We’re not having a popularity contest here.
You can think that I’m…taking meaning that isn’t there
I sure do, because you are. Just because I’m saying that it’s important to stand up and fight for your rights does not mean that I’m advocating for this particular guy to put himself in a situation where he might get beaten up or killed, or judging him for not doing so. There’s an enormous range of actions between actively putting yourself in harm’s way and doing nothing at all. And in fact, the only person judging people here…is you.
for some principle the victim doesn’t want to stand for
So we should all just let racism flourish then and not stand against it? The victim here isn’t being threatened with violence, and they have friends too, so why then run away? Running away from problems never solves anything
If the racism is institutionalized, the racists will always win in the end. I work with people with disabilities and the list of places I can’t take people with dark skin keeps growing. There was a park we used to enjoy until someone started stalking us, as if that wasn’t bad enough the cops were called on us every time by the stalker. They knew they only needed to get the racist cop once for it to work, and us knowing that too means we can’t go back. They got what they wanted.
This helps no one and accomplishes nothing, just saying we should “deal with racism” is racism in itself.
Institutional racism will always exist as long as that’s peoples attitude towards it. Civil Rights never would’ve gotten anywhere if black people were just complacent ALL the time, if black people didn’t make noise they never would’ve been heard by white people and forced to think about these issues.
This is a lived expirence that actually happened. Don’t treat it like an arguement to do nothing because i never suggested people should do nothing. What it should do is inform how one approaches dealing with racism because asking a Disabled Black young man to risk bodily harm to get the same rights other people already have is not going to work. You can’t put the burden of changing a predatory system on the people the system preys upon. Thats the message.
At no point did I make any argument that the entire burden should rest on your shoulders and your shoulders alone, nor would I ever. This is a shared burden amongst all of us. Letting racism take control of our lives is an admission of defeat and I will not tolerate that in my country.
news
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.