U.S. District Judge Charles Simpson’s ruling declared that the actions of Taylor’s boyfriend, who fired a shot at police the night of the raid, were the legal cause of her death, not a bad warrant.
Yep. If the aide is found guilty, she should suffer the consequences of her actions. The fact that she’s a Democrat (or worked for a Democrat) is no reason to stand in the way of justice.
To their credit, they terminated her when they found evidence. However, it seems to indicate that an independent entity is needed to run thorough background checks.
However, it seems to indicate that an independent entity is needed to run thorough background checks.
Do we know if background checks would have helped? As long ago as she joined, its possible she was operating totally above board when she started (when the background check would have occurred) and that she made the ties and did the crimes later. We don’t have enough information yet.
Do we know if background checks would have helped?
I suppose not. I just think that something should be done, be it more frequent background checks, or anonymous 360 reviews within the staff, or an independent board to review decisions made. We should necessarily trust everyone on the staff to have our best interests at heart, especially when they’re foreign nationals. This sounds like someone that the CIA/NSA should have been checking up on and notifying the FBI of their actions.
We should necessarily trust everyone on the staff to have our best interests at heart, especially when they’re foreign nationals
While she was born in China, she was a naturalized US Citizen, not a foreign national.
This sounds like someone that the CIA/NSA should have been checking up on and notifying the FBI of their actions.
This might have occurred and why she was found out. We don’t know.
My guess is the thing that gave them away was the money. Buying million dollar properties and a 2024 Ferrari are conspicuous. I’m curious when this spending started. How long had it been that they did the crime, got the money, and started spending. Was this over the course of a decade or in the last year or two?
I’m not for banning any books, but with that said, Stephen King has some very fucked up books, like the one where the 10-year-olds have a spontaneous orgy at the end of It.
Technically it was a train, and they were experiencing a transcendent connection across time with their older selves, in a deliberately unsettling and transgressive scene meant to evoke the rawness of adolescence being laid bare before the worst cosmic horror – an eldritch carrion-eater who feeds on destroying the souls of children – as a way of reclaiming strength from vulnerability. At any rate, depiction is not endorsement.
But yes, considering how many actual adults misinterpret and mischaracterize that scene, I don’t recommend that particular book to children – not because they’ll be damaged by it, but because they won’t have the wisdom of age to understand it.
Yeah. It was horrible but literally “need to grow up fast” as a kind of pseudo protection from the demon that is pennywise.
The entire book is a series of horrors. Another story that hits just as hard but in a different way is Needful Things. Definitely an apt metaphor for how people can be cajoled and manipulated into doing heinous things.
It’s definitely messed up just like the old vampire in the body of a 13 year old in the Diaries of a Vampire series.
It’s fair to have an issue with it but what about all the other books?
I bet I can guess what they don’t like about them and that isn’t it
I read IT in the 8th grade and I didn’t really get the whole “transgressive scene meant to evoke the rawness of adolescence being laid bare before the worst cosmic horror” part, but I did understand that they were doing it as a way to ‘ground’ themselves to reality. And as a 13 year old boy, I thought it was kinda hot.
I always read it more acting as a final severing of their childhood to protect against It as it preferred to eat children. Not to mention as a more substantial blood pact as part of the ritual of chud to become metaphorically one being in the cosmic fight
I turned out mostly ok and was reading King well before 12. There were quite a few things I didn’t understand yet but it didn’t make me want to go out and assault people or something
I’m more concerned about the unrestricted access. Kids often have the emotional and logical understanding to read these works, but the point of the library is to have easy and unblocked access to the material, which topics featured in King’s books are heavy and it should be up to the parents to guide and help them read. Over 12/13 the kids should be able to pick for themselves bar pornographic material like that one book everyone always argues over.
I’m on the other end of the fence on this one. Knowledge shouldn’t be withheld due to arbitrary lines. If the parents aren’t tuned into what their children are reading or if the kid feels they must hide away what they’re reading, it’s indicative of more serious issues than books.
I say this with a kid who’s just starting to learn their letters and not at a point of reading on their own yet. If they want to pick up Ulysses or the silmarillion, I’m not stopping them. I will warn them they’ve chosen books that are very advanced and they will have more questions than answers while reading.
The problem here is you chose two non-controverisal books that have harder themes but are still mostly pg. I would argue most parents editor give their 10yo the silmarillion, but i highly doubt many would give them Game of Thrones.
Based on arrests, valid allegations and mountains of evidence…this is the party that spends an awful lot of time *thinking of children". And not in a safe way
Bullshit, most of his work is fine for anyone able to read it. If you think there are exception, make those specific exceptions …. Although most of us will likely disagree
Yea. There has to be some kind of balancing act. I don’t know what the right answer is. My wife is a teacher and we spar over this sometimes. I lean towards not banning but she claims the resources just aren’t there to vet and manage check-out. She concedes that if there were more resources and staff available then it wouldn’t be an issue.
This does bring up a good question though: Should access be
Completely unrestricted?
Somewhat restricted?
Heavily moderated?
The last time I posed this question I got dogpiled on Lemmy but I feel like people are really not thinking through the consequences. And if you can’t, then you should really pause and think about it.
There are pros and cons for each stance. I just don’t think it’s that simple as many here want it to be.
I sincerely think that access to books should never be restricted, I think even stuff like Mein Kampf should be available, just that for kids, there should be guidance to help digest it, both for Stephen King and Mein Kampf. So if you ask me, it should be completely unrestricted, but moderated, so if you check out Mein Kampf, you get a free mandatory lesson on the Holocaust.
I guess I got downvoted since one of those US dipshits did something stupid, and my opinion on it was more nuanced than “lol, idiot”.
The idea of this super moderated availability of books sounds super great when you write it out like that. But there aren’t even enough teachers around to teach the bare minimum. I don’t know how you imagine that would be manageable.
Side point. If Mein Kampf should be accessible, do you think so should all the hate speech and misinformation everyone tries to ban from social media ?
I have a seven year old that reads at a fifth grade level (he was lucky he learned early). I can think of a miriad things worse than Mei kampf that I’m conflicted he should have access to. I’m all for unrestricted access, but what if he picks up a book with graphic depictions of rape? I don’t know that I want him confronting this at such a young age. What about kids with trauma?
These are just off the bat of my head. I can think of many more examples. That’s why when the unrestricted crowd comes in I sometimes scratch my head. Do you guys have children? It’s not so simple if you think about it for more than a few seconds. Again, I don’t have a right answer. I just wish people stopped and reflected a bit.
This is just more bullshit to solve a problem that doesn’t exist. We should not be restricting books at all. Isn’t it always Republicans that talk about small government and that it should be parents protecting their kids? Well why can’t parents just attempt to be aware of what they’re child is reading?
What is the worst possible outcome of someone reading about sex? It’s just puritanical bullshit, and forcing everyone else to adhere to their beliefs. Would love to hear how this comports with “limited government”.
Nope. No other scenarios. You are free to choose what you read. Parents are free to filter what their children read until they come of age. End of conversation.
The burden of freedom is embracing the lack of safety it affords us.
Should a 7 year old victim of SA be exposed to a novel with graphic depictions of rape?
Should a 9 year old check out a book that gives instructions on making pipe bombs?
Are all parents ever-present in their children’s lives?
You really can’t spend two seconds thinking about this? I’m not asking you to compromise your abolutist position. I’m OK if you don’t shift on this position. I’m just asking you to reflect on why it’s not so simple.
I think high schoolers can handle that. But I guess when you’re in a state where the intention is to prevent young people from understanding sex, it starts to make sense.
Between them and Rolling Stone the last few years…
“Well guys, looks like the grey lady is doing a 1935 again, so Jackson, I’m gonna need you to pivot from writing relationship quizzes to the child labor beat. Ada, Frank, can you handle best makeup tutorials and genocide? Allison, I know you’re on concert reviews, how would you feel about also picking up the investigation on coal coke emissions?”
Fucking good on them, I’m sure that there have always been people doing good work at these publications, but it seems like they’ve had to really expand their purview recently to cover these giant gaps.
From what I can see I’d definitely rank Teen Vogue above Rolling Stone, although both are still editorial to some degree. Teen Vogue’s headlines aren’t as incendiary.
Says who? Regardless, at least someone trying to reduce one’s dependancy on this shit is doing something rather than simply disregarding any attempts like you are.
can you show a causal link between being vegan and a decrease in child labor? my guess is that there is a general trend of increased child labor globally that tracks closely the rise in veganism.
As if fruit and veg packing and processing plants are any better. As long as greedy humans are in charge people will be exploited as much as they possibly can regardless of what the industry is.
news
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.