Propublica Media Bias Fact Check Credibility: [High] (Click to view Full Report)> Name: propublica.org> Bias: Left-Center
> Factual Reporting: High
> Country: United States of America
> Full Report: mediabiasfactcheck.com/propublica/
Check the bias and credibility of this article on Ground.News
FooterBeep boop. This action was performed automatically. If you dont like me then please block me.š
If you have any questions or comments about me, you can make a post to LW Support lemmy community.
Common Dreams Media Bias Fact Check Credibility: [High] (Click to view Full Report)> Name: commondreams.org> Bias: Left
> Factual Reporting: High
> Country: United States of America
> Full Report: mediabiasfactcheck.com/common-dreams/
Check the bias and credibility of this article on Ground.News
FooterBeep boop. This action was performed automatically. If you dont like me then please block me.š
If you have any questions or comments about me, you can make a post to LW Support lemmy community.
Voice of America Media Bias Fact Check Credibility: [High] (Click to view Full Report)> Name: voanews.com> Bias: Least Biased
> Factual Reporting: High
> Country: United States of America
> Full Report: mediabiasfactcheck.com/voice-of-america/
Check the bias and credibility of this article on Ground.News
FooterBeep boop. This action was performed automatically. If you dont like me then please block me.š
If you have any questions or comments about me, you can make a post to LW Support lemmy community.
Voice of America Media Bias Fact Check Credibility: [High] (Click to view Full Report)> Name: voanews.com> Bias: Least Biased
> Factual Reporting: High
> Country: United States of America
> Full Report: mediabiasfactcheck.com/voice-of-america/
Check the bias and credibility of this article on Ground.News
FooterBeep boop. This action was performed automatically. If you dont like me then please block me.š
If you have any questions or comments about me, you can make a post to LW Support lemmy community.
Voice of America Media Bias Fact Check Credibility: [High] (Click to view Full Report)> Name: voanews.com> Bias: Least Biased
> Factual Reporting: High
> Country: United States of America
> Full Report: mediabiasfactcheck.com/voice-of-america/
Check the bias and credibility of this article on Ground.News
FooterBeep boop. This action was performed automatically. If you dont like me then please block me.š
If you have any questions or comments about me, you can make a post to LW Support lemmy community.
It uses the spoiler tags in a way that a lot of mobile apps donāt recognize, and it ends up looking really ugly. It also shows as a comment on every news article, so it makes it look like thereās the start of a discussion when there isnāt any.
I donāt know how accurate it is, but I do find comment bots kind of annoying in general.
NBC News Media Bias Fact Check Credibility: [High] (Click to view Full Report)> Name: nbcnews.com> Bias: Left-Center
> Factual Reporting: High
> Country: United States of America
> Full Report: mediabiasfactcheck.com/nbc-news/
Check the bias and credibility of this article on Ground.News
FooterBeep boop. This action was performed automatically. If you dont like me then please block me.š
If you have any questions or comments about me, you can make a post to LW Support lemmy community.
It was in heavy rotation on one of the movie channels for a while when I was a kid (my dad was a movie historian, so we had HBO, Cinemax and Showtime so he could tape movies to show to class) and also Rae Dawn Chong is in it and I was horny and like 12.
also Rae Dawn Chong is in it and I was horny and like 12.
Sounds like our ages are within a few years of each other. She was not the only reason I liked Beat Street, but it didnāt hurt.
FWIW, I rewatched Beat Street a few months ago, with a little bit of fear that Iād find one of my old favorites was actually unwatchable drek.
Nope. I know it wasnāt an oscar winner, and maybe Iām one of like 15 people who think this, but that movie still slaps, and I appreciated some of the commentary far more deeply with a few more decades behind me.
It kinda feels like both. We are seeing his campaign machine at full speed, but for some reason it feels a bit broken. I guess weāll see where everything is in a month or so.
a dam has been broken... the dam that was joe bidens terrible idea at running. you had millions of people resolved to picking the older guy by default because fascism. they werent voting for president, they were voting against trump.
harris has enabled a metric fuck-tonne of people to stand up and get energized for a capable human being.
at the same time trumps campaign has been squarely focused on intimidating/making fun of biden. they are hopelessly lost in re-grouping n an attempt to attack harris. lets hope it stays discombobulated
AND then theres the Weird thing, which is sticking for some reason. awesome!
Love the āweirdā thing. People donāt make decisions using logic, almost always emotions are the key. Every salesman and politician knows this, though liberals seem to have missed the memo.
Democrats are finally hitting Trump voters where it hurts, right in the emotions, with not much of a way to spin it. Calling Trump a fascist rolls right off their back. āOf course libs would say that!ā But āweirdā resonates in some way I canāt put my finger on.
It also helps that their attempts to redirect back mostly serve to highlight their weird preoccupations.
Things are happening like a former Trump speechwriter posting āEmmett Till was weirdā on Twitter because they canāt comprehend just how unhinged and generally weird saying something like that is to a normal person.
Or they think theyāre being clever flipping the script and ranting about āboys saying theyāre girls is weird.ā āWhy do you spend so much time obsessing over what children have in their pants? Thatās really weird.ā
It all puts them in a bind. If they try to defend what theyāre saying as normal, itās very clear that it isnāt. If they try to deflect with what they think is weird, it just shows how detached they are from normal reality. Itās a surprisingly effective line of attack that largely neutralizes their normal gish galloping.
Iāve been enjoying the use or weird lately. Iāve had some strong personal opinions on language lately. A lot of it comes with a huge increase of new words that sort of seem abstract from itās meaning.
I think with how rapid information can spread to large groups of people, itās just too fast for my mind to keep up. All of a sudden I feel like Iām in a war with words and who knows which landmine of a word will get you in trouble. It causes me even more anxiety when someone comes at you with manipulative intentions in order to control the direction of the discussion.
I think weird works because itās an almost basic word. Itās simple and descriptive. Itās not a newer, more specific word that requires a deeper understanding of a broader topic. Itās understood by more people. People with varying degrees of language knowledge including people whose native language is not English. Itās easier for more people to understand.
Itās a lot easier to understand someone is weird compared to someone being a fascist.
Democrats donāt act like the Republican party is a threat to democracy, so their attempts to play up that line of rhetoric always fall flat.
However, Democrats are happy to work with weird people like the Republicans, making this line of attack much more impactful because itās the first honest bit of propaganda in years.
Honestly. I see so many people saying Trump and republicans are falling apart and theyāre terrified, but Iām like, this is the exact same rhetoric weāve been getting from them for 8 years.
He wonāt have Comey in the eleventh hour handng him a huge gift in reopening the investigation that never had anything to go on for years because they found another laptop with all the same data on it as before but ā it might be illegal until we double verify itās all the exact same data as our analysts have already said it is ā
9 days later and heās a mess. This is not the same as 2016. Nothing about this election is like 2016. Did we forget he already lost last time in 2020?
Remember when Democrats called the Republicansā bluff and offered them everything they wanted about immigration on a plate and the Republicans turned it down?
Because why the hell are they not still telling everyone about that? Especially in situations like this?
All five justices agreed with at least part of the ruling. But two of the justices said they felt the firing squad was not a legal way to kill an inmate and one of them felt the electric chair is a cruel and unusual punishment.
Lethal injection has serious downsides. It turns out the drugs simply keep you from moving about as you slowly asphyxiate.
The electric chair it truly cruel. Yes, it fries your system, but it does it relatively slowly.
The firing squad has the issue of the marksmanās aim. If itās off, you die slowly. Even if itās dead on, pun intended, you realize whatās happening.
Iāve always wondered if, perhaps, the fastest method would be the guillotine.
Many years ago, in OMNI magazine, there was a story about a future where it was deemed inhumane to even let someone know they were going to be executed. They were kept in a small apartment awaiting the verdict. When the verdict was announced, no matter what it was, they were told they were free to go. Upon grabbing the doorknob, a neurotoxin was injected into the guilty with almost instantaneous effect.
As to discussions of the death penalty itself, I feel if someone was in their right mind, understood the consequences of their actions, and, if placed in the same situation, would commit the crime again, yes, they need to be removed from society permanently. Those who are deemed mentally fit, but bent like serial killers, should lose all their freedom and be placed at the disposal of mental health professionals to study.
What are your thoughts on ways of killing that would be humane?
I say the death penalty is itself inhumane, focusing on the technical problem misses the point. Killing people you have a high degree of confidence committed murder means on a long enough time span, youāre virtually guaranteed to kill innocents. The process required to minimize these false positive killings makes the death penalty more expensive than life in prison, on average. As far as I can tell, thereās no upside to the death penalty, unless youāre firmly convinced that the criminal justice system needs to focus on retribution.
The only humane option I see is to let them live out their lives in a context where they wonāt reoffend.
But thatās kind of my point, the only humane method is not to kill people. Asking ābut how do we do itā is like asking how to square a circle; there may be a couple of interesting things to learn along the way, but you wonāt find any satisfying answers to the question.
on a long enough time span, youāre virtually guaranteed to kill innocents
On a long enough time span, youāre also virtually guaranteed to lock innocents in prison for the rest of their natural lives. (My guess is that this happens more often than killing innocents because death-penalty cases attract much more attention.) Is killing people so much worse than putting them up in a cage and never letting them out that one is inhumane and the other isnāt?
I donāt disagree with your main point, the carceral system is itself fundamentally broken, and fixing one thing wonāt suddenly make the system humane. The goal of a criminal justice system should be to reduce recidivism, to empower people through education to leave ready to have a more constructive and fulfilling life than when they arrived. We should respect the humanity of inmates, overturn wrongful convictions, eviscerate minimum sentencing guidelines, abolish stupid crimes that donāt even represent a threat to society like prostitution, and apply state and federal minimum wages to inmates, among so many other changes.
Thereās so much inhumanity in the system, to your point. We can and should revisit convictions, and try to make amends if we got it wrong. And it should really never look anything like putting people in a cage for life.
While, for the most part, I agree with you, there are cases that are simply a textbook example of needing the death penalty. If somebody, in their right mind, decides to kill simply because they want to know what itās like, they need to be removed from the herd.
Look at inmates who continue to present a danger not only to staff, but to other inmates. If, as far as medical science is able to, they are in their right mind, what do you do with them?
I get what youāre saying, itās certainly a hard situation, and a rare one, but I think ātruly nothing we can doā is an exceptionally rare situation.
But why is that person acting the way they are? People do things for reasons, even if they arenāt good ones. Maybe the only way they can safely interact with people is via video chat, and respecting the humanity of the others around them means thatās all they get. There are ways for them to get access to food, water, shelter, sunlight, even socialization, without physical access to others, and access to somebody to talk to who might be able to help them, even if the DSM doesnāt have a specific diagnosis that describes them.
I think any system that deals with people who have done what society has labelled crime should seek to minimize harm, and maximize opportunities to grow for those who wish to take them. I donāt think your ātextbookā case for the death penalty achieves either of these aims.
Nitrogen gas, hands down. Plenty of others gases, except CO2, would work but NO2 is cheap. We donāt have ālow O2ā sensors, we have āhigh CO2ā sensors. I remember a teen couple making love in a helium filled store balloon/display. They died clueless.
The reason for the very publicized failure last time it was tried was using a mask. Simply put the condemned in a small room and flood it, just like astronautās hypoxia trainings. Going out silly and stoned would be about as nice as it gets. And having said that, I have no idea why we donāt OD prisoners on opiates. Seems like a no-brainer.
As to the firing squad, I feel thatās fairly āhumaneā, would be my third choice if it was me. The condemned just slump and die. Hollywood doesnāt do the nature of gunshot wounds justice. People mostly just drop, strings cut. The lack of drama is far more horrifying than getting knocked through a window. Unfortunately, I saw a video of Mexican police shotgunning a protesting student at 1-2ā. The victim looked a little stunned and fell like a sack potatoes. Original cowboy movies showed death like that, but audiences didnāt feel it was realistic.
Rifle rounds setup a shock wave that rearranges your chest cavity. And theyāre not using some wimpy bullet such as an AR-15 chambers. Something like a 30.06 or .308 is a monster round. Add up 4-5 hits like that, you wonāt know what hit you.
As to the firing squad, I feel thatās fairly āhumaneā, would be my third choice if it was me.
It seems like our modern execution methods are concerned more about the comfort of society than the comfort of the condemned. Shooting someone feels more like killing than the bloodless alternatives. Or am I making things up? I wonder if there has been any research into this.
And having said that, I have no idea why we donāt OD prisoners on opiates. Seems like a no-brainer.
The same reason lethal injection is so difficult. We know exactly what drugs to use. They are used on pets and animals all the time. The trouble is procuring them for the death penalty. Companies donāt want the stigma of supplying this drugs for that purpose.
Also really amazed thereās only 2 comments about nitrogen. The sensor thing is spot on. Very humane.
I oppose the death penalty, but not because I think itās wrong to kill some criminals. I am perfectly fine with ending people like Tim McVeigh or Susan Smith. My problem is that I donāt have confidence courts can reliably tell who deserves and who doesnāt.
They always say the death penalty is for the āworst of the worstā, but many arbitrary factors can make the difference. The race /social class of the criminal/ victim. The ambition of the prosecutor. The location of the crime.
Steven Fry interviewed people involved with execution in different parts of the South. It turns out that they think that the executee deserves to suffer
Thank you for the reference. Having read most of it so far, I came across this passage:
Having disqualified Sueās argument, Cabanis turns to Sƶmmerringās thesis on the post-decapitation persistence of an active, conscious sensorium commune. Several facts argue against this. What is commonly known as a ārabbit punchā shows that a violent blow to the neck leads to an immediate loss of consciousness. Furthermore, a rapid hemorrhage deprives the brain of the blood it needs to function. Each of the individual circumstances brought together by the guillotine is enough to produce a true syncope. Cabanis concludes from this that the head and body of a man who has been guillotined endure no suffering and that death is as fast as the stroke of the blade.
I was trying to find the specifics, but there was a doctor who did some experiments during the terror. there was one head whose eyes popped open and looked right at him when he shouted his name, and another head that went into the same basket as his rival that bit the other head on the cheek and couldnāt be loosened for 2 hours.
if the guillotine blade went slightly higher, actually impacting the brain stem, it might be different, although I admit that we are all guessing. personally, if I were going to be guillotineād, I would request that they replace the blade with a large weight and drop it directly on my head.
news
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.