What good reason does a union have to pick a side on an issue that Americans are divided about, when that issue is entirely irrelevant to the union’s core purpose?
Not really. We just want Israel to stop genociding Palestinians who, btw, have lived on that piece of land for 2000 years (since the Romans kicked out Jewish people at the beginning of the Diaspora).
I also love the implication that disarming a country is beyond the pale when the US does this through sanctions to the Palestinians and other countries.
On December 1, the UAW became the largest union in the U.S. to officially call for a ceasefire, explaining, as one union leader put it in a statement at the time, “From opposing fascism in WWII to mobilizing against apartheid South Africa and the CONTRA war, the UAW has consistently stood for justice across the globe.” The UAW’s International Executive Board, or IEB, also voted to form a Divestment and Just Transition working group to “study the history of Israel and Palestine, the union’s economic ties to the conflict, and to explore how to achieve a just transition for US workers from war to peace.” Other major unions followed the UAW’s lead.
I understand that that’s what the union leaders think. I’m asking why they’re saying so in their official capacity on behalf of union workers who often aren’t actually inclined to think so. Apparently the resolution is more popular with the college teaching assistants in the union than it is with actual auto workers, with whom even the union’s endorsement of Biden is controversial. IMO while the country as a whole has to pick a single policy regarding Israel regardless of how divisive the issue is, the union shouldn’t since it doesn’t actually have to.
A much better question is why does the government (by way of its appointed monitor) think they have a say on the matter? IANAL, but this seems like a pretty clear violation of the first amendment right to free speech. This is especially true as a result of Citizens United, as bad as the ruling was.
People don’t think it’s possible to do all of this. After reading the entire thing, it’s 100% possible, but I don’t think people are seeing this as the end of democracy in the U.S.
Women, minorities, public education, the environment, work reform, social services and even protesting are straight up done. Sounds extreme, but I’m not seeing how you vote yourself out of this after firing everyone and replacing them with people only loyal to the president.
If this works, and I would not be at all shocked if it works, this is going to be every election in this country in a Republican-dominated area where the Republican loses at any position on the ticket. President is a Democrat? Refuse to certify. Dog catcher is a Democrat? Refuse to certify.
We seem to have a hard time grasping the idea that if you make it easy for people to obtain weapons that kill with the simple pull of a trigger, there are people who will kill a bunch of people with them.
This is the part where someone replies with how they’re a super responsible gun owner that supports common sense gun control (but never describes what that means to them) and that a majority of gun owners are like that. Then everyone thinks “huh that really makes sense if you compare the number of gun owners to the number of mass shooters” and then we have the same conversation next week.
I’m okay with responsible gun owners…but it should be difficult to prove that you are. The power of life and death shouldn’t be handed out like candy to anyone who wants it.
Baseball bat, knife, sword, a small amount of rope, axe, hatchet, machete, chainsaw, fireworks, gasoline…
Here’s the thing:
You already have to pass a background check.
So what more do you want? After that the criteria start to become subjective and will be applied be racists to disarm minorities and poor people.
Now, I’m actually for some more generalized gun laws, like requiring that the gun or ammo be behind a lock when you’re not in control of it, but that’s not really relevant to stopping mass shootings. Ending mass shootings (a very small fraction of gun deaths) is way more about ending the desire to do such a thing.
We’ve had easy access to guns for a long time, but mass shootings only started in the 90s, when angry white men felt they were getting left behind and had no way to feel valuable in the new society we’ve been working to build. I would suggest this episode of Some More News to get a quick understanding of angry men, and the book Angry White Men by Michael Kimmel to get a much deeper look at who these people are and why they act and feel the way that they do.
So, taking away the guns is a solution, I just don’t think we should do that. The reasons get into conflicting principles in society and would derail the point in trying to make which is this:
We used to have a society with lots of easily accessible guns whose build were conducive to doing a mass shooting, and yet we didn’t have mass shootings. That’s really my fundamental point. We can get rid of the mass shootings without getting rid of the guns. It basically involves a bunch of left-wing policy, ignoring anything they have to say about guns. Strengthen unions, M4A, fixing town planning, strengthen EPA, break up the monopolies, go after wage theft, go after business that hire under the table, uncap social security, send social workers to 911 calls that don’t actually need a cop. Etc. Etc.
So, taking away the guns is a solution to mass shootings I just don’t think we should do that. (You could argue they’d switch to cars.) The reasons get into conflicting principles in society and would derail the point in trying to make which is this:
We used to have a society with lots of easily accessible guns whose build were conducive to doing a mass shooting, and yet we didn’t have mass shootings. That’s really my fundamental point. Mass shootings are a social phenomenon. We can get rid of the mass shootings without getting rid of the guns. It basically involves a bunch of left-wing policy, ignoring anything they have to say about guns. Strengthen unions, M4A, fixing town planning, strengthen EPA, break up the monopolies, go after wage theft, go after business that hire under the table, uncap social security, send social workers to 911 calls that don’t actually need a cop. Etc. Etc.
Fair amount of biblical references in it; I’d guess the poster is drawing a parallel between that and the rather unhinged nature of Christian fundamentalism. I haven’t seen anything yet to indicate motives, so we’ll all see I guess.
Associated Press: “Milwaukee hotel employees fired after death of Black man who was pinned to the ground”
NBC: “Video shows Black man being pinned down by Milwaukee hotel security shortly before death”
CBS: “Milwaukee hotel workers fired after death of Black man pinned down outside”
ABC: “Al Sharpton to deliver eulogy for Black man who died after being held down by Milwaukee hotel guards”
CNN: “A Black man died after he was pinned to the ground by security guards at a Milwaukee hotel. Now his family wants answers”
Fox 6 Milwaukee: “Hyatt Regency Milwaukee death; man’s family gathers outside hotel”
Fox News: “”
These are the earliest stories posted by each outlet that I could find. The headlines speak volumes. The local Fox affiliate omits the fact that the man was black in the headline, and Fox News has yet to acknowledge it even happened, which was 12 days ago (June 30). I’m sure they’ll get around to it, though.
Using an active voice is perfectly fine. The standard practice is to use the term alleged if there is a possible crime. Saying “Security guard pins black man and man dies” is absolutely fine.
I was thinking along the same lines… but I don’t think I’d want anyone to be able to publicly label me a killer if it hasn’t been proven yet that I actually killed a person. Maybe there was a second person who actually did it and bailed before the cops showed up and this person was wrong place, wrong time. Not even saying that’s the case in this example (probably isn’t), but we still need to treat it the same as any other.
Manslaughter hasn’t been proven yet either; until they’re convicted, it’s all “alleged.”
Hence why it was so incredibly satisfying to get the ruling on George Floyd, and henceforth officially refer to it as “the police murder of George Floyd” - a lot of people will even forcefully correct anyone that tries to refer to it as ‘tragic death’ or ‘accidental death’.
Probably because it might have been a hate crime and might have done it for hate reasons, and maybe they will do it again unless they are held accountable. That would be my guess.
Cops keep murdering people, the same people too, the same evil fucks killing under the same pretenses. There’s a fucking tendency to kill certain people, wake up
I’m not trolling, I read the article and a few things stood out.
This guy has two kids, I have 3 at similar ages, he has a family that loved him. The article states he had some mental health issues, but doesn’t go into how severe (I assume low level, otherwise it would have stated it). It says that he was unarmed, you know what American gun culture fucks up to many things for you, this shouldn’t even be a point of note.
The least interesting thing about a murder victim should be their race. Would it make any difference if he was Chinese, Indian or Samoan? A man was killed, his kids will miss him, is family will morn him.
As for
You know exactly why it matters.
I have an idea why you think it matters, I know why I think it doesn’t. If this was a race based killing, that can be taken into account at sentencing.
how exactly is it racist, to be concerned with the fact that a murder occurred.
Is that actually what you think the disagreement is about? Be honest now, is this really what you think you’re being criticized for? Being concerned about murder?
You dismissed the relevance that a white security guard killed an unarmed black suspect, in an era where armed white men regularly killed unarmed black men with impunity.
I don’t find murder a political issue. Why do you think murder is political?
This is a weird response. I never said anything was “political”, I said that your rigid insistence on colorblindness in the case of a white armed security guard restraining and killing an unarmed black man is inherently racist because you seek to invalidate any claim of racial bias despite plenty of evidence that these situations are heavily influenced by racial bias.
You’re asking people to look the other way at an event that is being compared to the murder of George Floyd.
If anything, you seem conspicuously unconcerned about the nature of this murder.
If you think that Black lives are inherently “political”, I am happy to reiterate my assessment that you are a racist person.
I have an idea why you think it matters, I know why I think it doesn’t. If this was a race based killing, that can be taken into account at sentencing.
There’s a pattern of disproportionate use of force against black folks by police in the US. I’m not going to argue with you about that fact. You either know it’s true, or will not be swayed by any evidence I present anyhow. And when police kill someone who may be yet another example of this, it matters and is worth including.
If this was a race based killing, that can be taken into account at sentencing.
Oh so you think that racism should be an aggravating factor in sentencing? That sounds like it would be inconsistent with your other statements here. I would expect something like “why is there a lesser punishment for killing a white person you hate than killing a black person you hate?”
“White folks don’t get in disturbances in Milwaukee?” Sharpton said during the funeral. “Do y’all throw white folks to the ground and put your knee on their neck? The sentence for disturbance is death?”
So humans often study patterns in human behavior in order to gain insight into things like group dynamics, sometimes even as a profession. Crazy right?
And others try to use that data to try and correct historical injustices and atrocities we’ve made against marginalized people. That, I know for sure, is crazy to you.
I’m sure you think this is all just “virtue signalling,” which says a lot about you.
Black Americans are 3.23 times more likely than white Americans to be killed by police, according to a new study by researchers from Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. The researchers examined 5,494 police-related deaths in the U.S. between 2013 and 2017. Rates of deadly police encounters were higher in the West and South than in the Midwest and Northeast, according to the study. Racial disparities in killings by police varied widely across the country, with some metropolitan areas showing very high differences between treatment by race. Black Chicagoans, for example, were found to be over 650% more likely to be killed by police than white Chicagoans.
Fox news is probably hard at work trying to find pictures of him on social media with a gun, or drugs, or anything that gives them the “he was no angel” narrative
Yep, because it is extremely effective on their base. Any reason they can discount a person as a bad one, or as a “criminal,” makes them a sub-human animal whose rights and worth can be completely disregarded.
I can hear some of my conservative family now. “Oh he got killed? WELL I GUESS HE SHOULDN’T HAVE CHOSEN TO STEAL/TAKE DRUGS/BE BLACK/BE A CRIMINAL HUH?!?”
yeah i wasn’t making a joke either, they do this every time, the fact that they haven’t reported on this just indicates to me they haven’t found anything yet
Did I mention I light up a cigarette, pull out my phone, then almost at the end I hold a water bottle and try to see if I can shoot… I turn my car off.
This is sort of a southerner thing. Up north, many gas stations actually ask you to keep your engine running while you pump. Because when it’s -20 degrees outside, turning your engine off is just asking to get stranded. And if you get stranded at a gas station overnight, (like when the lobby has closed but the pumps are still active for card transactions,) there’s a good chance you’ll be dead in the parking lot by the time the morning crew shows up to open.
It’s just like going to the store 😁…who ever has the most money can buy the thing. Sometimes even if the thing already has a price on it!
I wonder if Beyond our circle of influence 🤔 there’s a bunch of people who actually know the price to purchase the presidency or a position as a judge.
news
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.