seen lots of comments insinuating that she slept her way to the top, calling her Kamala “on her back/knees” Harris. I just reply with *citation needed and they always either don’t respond or say “dO YouR ReSeArCh!”
I think they’re referring to when in 1994 she was appointed to the California State Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board and the California Medical Assistance Commission by her boyfriend the then Speaker of the California Assembly, Willie Brown.
Nothing says sleeping to the top like prominent posts that I just heard about today such as the California State Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board and the California Medical Assistance Commission.
Oh, I wasn’t criticizing you, I was criticizing the people that are suggesting she slept her way to the top. I wouldn’t be overly concerned about the pay issue, both positions are in the $50k range, so not exactly the stuff of corruption.
Bullshit. I just watched that speech, and there was no chant — it was clearly one person saying “lock him up”, and they didn’t even repeat it. And she was grinning before that applause break, not in response to a random heckle at the end of it. Wtf is this.
Idk, to my ears, it could’ve been either. It’s a bit like the Laurel/Yanny thing or the blue and bronze dress. Would need someone who was there to confirm.
I put on my sony wh-1000xm5’s to get as clear audio as I could. The first few chants could be interpreted as “lock him up” but it quickly turned to a clear “Ka-ma-la” once the cheering and clapping reduced.
At 8:34 there was a single clear “lock him up” after Harris mentioned Trump’s recent conviction.
So that’s settled now, I they weren’t chanting “lock him up”
I’m unable to hear lock him up much at all. “Loh 'im uh!” is the closest I can get when forcing it… I’m just not hearing any Ks or Ps at the end of those words, no matter how hard I try.
It’s “Ka-ma-la”… I just replayed it over and over, trying to hear “lock him up”, and at this point I feel like I’m trying to unfocus my eyes at a Jackson Pollock and expecting to see a schooner.
don’t be like that, they are just saying that the two events happened at the same time. “Kamala Harris grins as the world marks new hottest day on record”, “Kamala Harris grins as hundreds more flights get cancelled after huge IT outage”. See? Perfectly innocent journalism!
I can’t believe all those stupid anti-biden truck decals etc will be rendered pointless in a matter of months. I better start making anti-Kamala decals if i want to properly capitalize on these next 4 years 🤑
Edit: cry into your fuckin ear-squares ya bunch of sad sacks
Just pack the goddamn court. There’s ONE conservative justice on the Supreme Court who was appointed by a president who came to power having received more votes than his opponent, and that’s Clarence Thomas, the man whose loyalties can be bought with a luxury vacation and whose wife aided and abetted insurrectionist traitors.
The ENTIRE conservative wing of the Supreme Court is illegitimate. Every single one of them. And you know what? Thanks to the GOP, it only takes 50 votes to approve a supreme court justice. It used to be sixty, but they changed the rules so they could more conveniently destroy America.
He talks about there being blood if loses. Relaxed gun regulations and appointed Judges that will keep it that way. When you act like a strong man expect stupid shit.
You’re “own” isn’t an own at all. Prayers are important. Especially for the now deceased shooter, his family and the victims (including Trump). Lots of callousness in this thread.
I can’t imagine having to move state to keep my job, but having to move from California to Florida especially feels like an outrageous demand. Not just because of distance but because…I mean, are you fucking serious?? Florida? You want me to move from the biggest, bluest, mostly progressive state…to Florida?
There’s no amount of compensation in the world that would make me do that. That’s borderline self-harm.
Not borderline, it outright is self harm. Buying a home in Florida is idiotic due to climate change and insurance companies pulling out of the state, and there are travel advisories recommending to not go there under any circumstances (especially trans people, who can be arrested and fined for existing there).
My parents and brother just moved from Oregon to Florida… like wtf. At least they have something there for them, uncles who own houses and business there giving them a place to stay and a steady job there. My brother was unemployed and looking to move anyway, but Florida? I’m just hoping they treat it as a stepping stone to getting back on their feet and then move to like Georgia or somewhere else nearby
Dwyane Wade has more money than he’ll ever need and even he got the fuck out of Florida as soon as his contract was done because he knew it would be torture to keep his daughter there.
Not any more at least. Prior to this bill, failing to register for Selective Services was a felony punishable by imprisonment for up to five years and/or a fine of not more than $250,000.
Now you’re automatically enrolled. I think it’s actually better this way.
Eh, military service now is 8 years right? I’d take jail and file bankruptcy. At least you’ll be alive instead of cannon fodder, and it’s 3 years less.
We were always forced to register. The fine and imprisonment were penalties for avoiding registration. You’d be registered at the hearing as well as facing consequences.
I don’t think the military is dying at a noticeable rate, especially as “cannon fodder.” A quick Google says deaths by hostile action hasn’t broken the triple digits annually over the last decade. I also didn’t really look at the other deaths, so feel free to dive into that side.
if they draft it’s because cannon fodder is needed.
That’s a big if, as you noted US hasn’t drafted in forever. But even if they did draft, the US hasn’t used “cannon fodder” tactics for several decades. Their technology is so advanced (and military budget/spending so high) they don’t need to in order to win. Trench warfare ain’t really a thing anymore.
Might as well be. Giving a gun to a murderer is as bad as pulling the trigger, and that’s what supply officers do. Mechanics fix killing machines. Cooks feed killers while they’re off killing. The military is a machine, and every cog in that machine is a murderer.
It was not automatic so rich people can avoid it. I have never heard of someone facing criminal charges for failing to register. I have heard that failing to register can impact eligibility for college financial aid and scholarships.
I have heard that failing to register can impact eligibility for college financial aid and scholarships.
And this is why I hate the fucking neoliberals so much. As bad as the conservatives are they don’t expect me to agree with them, they just want my money. Neoliberalism demands that you not only pay a shit ton of money for student loan debt that you also internalize that you deserve to because you were privileged. They have developed economic original sin
Who knew pissing off leftist people by being a douchebag when your company sells electric vehicles that are typically championed by said leftists could hurt your sales? So mysterious.
Yep. I was unironically going to buy a Cybertruck… then Elon came out of the fascist closet while Tesla’s QC/CS problems escalated… now there is no way I will ever touch anything Tesla or related to Musk.
Waiting for Aptera now, but would also consider Rivian in a pinch.
Most of its issues were fixed by vin 3000 or so (out of about 9000 total). It was 90% brilliant, but the last few details and forced design changes just killed it.
I thought all drive-by-wire was illegal because of the lag. 1/8s does seem very possible to make a difference between life and death.
The article listed another car with 0.28s lag as responding faster. Do you know if that’s a typo or is my brain not working?
Thank you for sharing this. I don’t want a car with that much lag on the controls. It sounds like it isn’t just Tesla, it is something you need to check on any model EV.
I was a huge fan of Aptera the first time around, in the mid 2000s. I was crushed to see them fold simply because the government yanked funding for any vehicles that didn’t have 4 wheels (funding that Tesla did get, which is why they survived).
The Cybertruck was announced in 2019, while I heard about Aptera’s resurrection only in late 2021. Until recently, Aptera’s second attempt was looking really tenuous, too. The only just secured full funding to enter full scale production.
Basically, I like practicality. When it was announced, Cybertruck sounded like it would be very practical… rough, tough, indestructible, and electric. We know better now.
Aptera is a very different kind of practical, sure… but for a car I’d use for light commuting a couple times per week (in SoCal), there’s a chance I may never even need to plug it in. That beats out any and all other considerations, in my book.
I’ve seen a few Cybertrucks parked around the city now. They literally look like something either the fascist, militant law enforcement or the Uber-wealthy would drive around in, in a dystopian future.
Definitely designed to keep you safe from the violent peasant class, especially should you need to run over a few of them in the process.
They’ll take anyone these day, especially if they join the three day special military operation. I’m sure Ukranians would love to find him in a trench.
I don’t know about Australia, but before Australia was the destination for penal transportation from the UK, the American colonies were.
I recall reading that one of the factors that contributed to the American Revolution was that a lot of Americans wanted to be able to have some say in selecting immigrants, and didn’t really want the UK dumping criminals there.
I’d imagine that Australia might have some similar ideas.
With increasing numbers of free settlers entering New South Wales and Van Diemen’s Land (Tasmania) by the mid-1830s, opposition to the transportation of felons into the colonies grew. The most influential spokesmen were newspaper proprietors who were also members of the Independent Congregational Church such as John Fairfax in Sydney and the Reverend John West in Launceston, who argued against convicts both as competition to honest free labourers and as the source of crime and vice within the colony. Bishop Bernard Ullathorne, a Catholic prelate who had been in Australia since 1832 returned for a visit to England in 1835. While there he was called upon by the government to give evidence before a Parliamentary Commission on the evils of transportation, and at their request wrote and submitted a tract on the subject. His views in conjunction with others in the end prevailed. The anti-transportation movement was seldom concerned with the inhumanity of the system, but rather the “hated stain” it was believed to inflict on the free (non-emancipist) middle classes.
Transportation to New South Wales temporarily ended 1840 under the Order-in-Council of 22 May 1840,[28] by which time some 150,000 convicts had been sent to the colonies. The sending of convicts to Brisbane in its Moreton Bay district had ceased the previous year, and administration of Norfolk Island was later transferred to Van Diemen’s Land.
Opposition to transportation was not unanimous; wealthy landowner, Benjamin Boyd, for reasons of economic self-interest, wanted to use transported convicts from Van Diemen’s Land as a source of free or low-cost labour in New South Wales, particularly as shepherds.[29][30] The final transport of convicts to New South Wales occurred in 1850, with some 1,400 convicts transported between the Order-in-Council and that date.[28]
The continuation of transportation to Van Diemen’s Land saw the rise of a well-coordinated anti-transportation movement, especially following a severe economic depression in the early 1840s. Transportation was temporarily suspended in 1846 but soon revived with overcrowding of British gaols and clamour for the availability of transportation as a deterrent. By the late 1840s most convicts being sent to Van Diemen’s Land (plus those to Victoria) were designated as “exiles” and were free to work for pay while under sentence. In 1850 the Australasian Anti-Transportation League was formed to lobby for the permanent cessation of transportation, its aims being furthered by the commencement of the Australian gold rushes the following year. The last convict ship to be sent from England, the St. Vincent, arrived in 1853, and on 10 August Jubilee festivals in Hobart and Launceston celebrated 50 years of European settlement with the official end of transportation.
They also buy lots of guns from the US. This is one of the real reasons. Lockheed Martin’s profit margins would decrease by a significant amount if our relationship with SA changed at all.
Even if the Saudis and other major countries in the reason were able to decrease tensions with Iran, Lockheed Martin and its associated propagandists and lobbyists would start beating the war drums to increase tensions and thus sales.
Edit: *one of the real reasons. Added para. on LM ensuring tensions in the region always remain high even when the people that live there and their government’s reduce tensions.
Per the article, they started to change policy a bit after some of the groups they were sponsoring started attacking the monarchy:
Astonishingly, the attacks of 9/11 had little effect on the Saudi approach to religious extremism, as diplomats and intelligence officials have attested. What finally changed royal minds was the experience of suffering an attack on Saudi soil. In May 2003, gunmen and suicide bombers struck three residential compounds in Riyadh, killing 39 people. The authorities attributed the attacks to al-Qaeda, and cooperation with the U.S. improved quickly and dramatically.
President Musk will demand tributes! Because that reality we can all understand easily. The whole petro-dollar hegemony thing is a little complex for a tweet. Not that anyone who understands it thinks it’s good.
Definitely that insurance was cut. Drug R&D is expensive, and they need to pay people who work and have projects that don’t pan out. But they should be able to spread that cost over everyone in the pool, reducing the cost to everyone to mere dollars or cents. But that requires insurance to actually fucking do their job.
Drug R&D is expensive, but it’s only 21% of the top 15 Pharmaceutical companies’ revenue. And that number is actually misleadingly high because it actually includes some actions that are just meant to help advertise the drugs.
That’s a mind-numbingly obvious point which completely ignores the context, which is Pharma justifying their high prices based on the amount they spend on R&D.
The rest of the world gets drugs 2-3x cheaper than the US. Do you imagine they’re selling at a loss to everywhere else?
If a company spends $2b on research each year and after 5 years brings a new medication to market which is only useful for 1 person in every billion, how much should that company sell that medication for and how is it relevant that the company “only” spent 21% of it’s revenue on research? That company could still say that the medication is costly due to research costs and the claim would be true.
I’m not saying pharma companies aren’t shady as fuck, I’m just saying that complaining about the percentage of their revenue spent on research is absurd.
The rest of the world gets cheaper medications because the medical system in the US is just a mess.
That said, some medications are still preclusively expensive outside the US “due to research”.
Good grief. You don’t need to wave your hands so wildly, this is really fucking simple maths. Expenditure which is 21% of the total cannot possibly be the reason why USians pay 2-3 times more than everywhere else for drugs.
You mean the R&D that the government paid for to take place at a public university, as is the norm? That’s the expense you’re claiming justifies this profiteering?
Until they start actually paying those subsidies back, that excuse doesn’t explain any of their profiteering.
I’m a researcher in the biological sciences at an institute which receives lots of government funding, and was at a university before my current position. We are not being paid to develop drugs. We are being paid to develop new knowledge that hopefully can be useful (in the broad sense of the term). Practically no one I’ve ever met during my time in academia is developing drugs, and the small few that were doing so were only researching a single, small part of a very long, complex process.
The R&D you are paying for is for us to typically find out that “Protein X interacts with Protein Y and causes Effect Z. When we delete Protein X then Effect Z goes away”. We might also find out that “Molecule Q can block the activity of Protein X, but has a host of issues that make it ineffective when given to Petri dish cells and mice.” This can give you a lead towards making a drug, but what we do is basically discover a possible starting point, nothing more. If someone wants to make a drug from this, they typically will start a company and get venture capital and angel investor money, as university labs are usually poorly equipped financially and talent wise to actually develop a drug (to speak nothing of pushing it through clinical trials). Transforming Molecule Q into a bona fide drug candidate is going to require a massive amount of work that most lay individuals are completely unaware of.
I’m really curious where this concept that the government is spending tons of money on drug R&D at publicly funded universities is coming from. It sounds great as a talking point, but from my perspective within the system it’s not quite how things work.
We are not being paid to develop drugs. We are being paid to develop new knowledge that hopefully can be useful
You know that the R in R&D stands for “research”, right? 🤦
The R&D you are paying for is for us to typically find out that “Protein X interacts with Protein Y and causes Effect Z. When we delete Protein X then Effect Z goes away”. We might also find out that “Molecule Q can block the activity of Protein X, but has a host of issues that make it ineffective when given to Petri dish cells and mice.”
Sounds a hell of a lot like that’s the kind of research that’s indispensable when formulating drugs.
This can give you a lead towards making a drug
Ya think? 🤦
but what we do is basically discover a possible starting point, nothing more
Sounds like you’re doing all of the research and other legwork tbh. That’s hardly just “a starting point”.
I’m really curious where this concept that the government is spending tons of money on drug R&D at publicly funded universities is coming from
You mean other than how you just confirmed it while trying to disprove it?
from my perspective within the system it’s not quite how things work.
That being the perspective of living proof that you can be intelligent and simultaneously oblivious of the obvious.
Either way, pharmaceutical companies aren’t spending all their income on R&D. By far the biggest expense is advertising and after that, it’s stockholder dividends of the absolutely obscene profits they’re making on ripping off sick people.
Lol the guy said it himself: “I am a researcher” doesn’t understand there is an entire other part called development that also gets government funding. He works in the field and doesn’t realize that the pharmaceuticals companies “developing” drugs also get grants and tax breaks.
I’m really curious where this concept that the government is spending tons of money on drug R&D at publicly funded universities is coming from.
It comes from reality
Onasemnogene abeparvovec, developed by the US biotechnology startup AveXis, which was acquired by Novartis in 2018, is based on research conducted at the Institut de Myologie in France.
The Institut de Myologie in France is a nonprofit org that funds itself mostly from a yearly telethon and government funding… This would be you
Novartis Gene Therapies, until 2020 known as AveXis, is a biotechnology company that develops treatments for rare neurological genetic disorders. It was founded in Dallas, Texas, United States in 2012 by John Carbona after reorganizing a company called BioLife Cell Bank founded by David Genecov and John Harkey. Work done at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in the laboratory of Brian Kaspar was licensed to AveXis in October 2013. Unusual for the time, Nationwide Children’s Hospital, in addition to upfront and milestone payments, also took an equity position in AveXis.
The Nationwide Children’s Hospital is a nationally ranked pediatric acute care teaching hospital located in the Southern Orchards neighborhood of Columbus, Ohio. The hospital has 673 pediatric beds and is affiliated with the Ohio State University College of Medicine
See? At least in part, the money for the start up that D the drug, based on the R France publicly provides, came from the Ohio State University which also receives public funding
As always with Capitalism… Socialise the costs, privatize the profits
The government funds all those small pieces of knowledge through various grants. Some are private, but most are from the government.
Then someone will take those bits of knowledge and assemble them into a new drug. 90% of the boring research is already done.
My employer pays me and my team a lot of money to develop new engineering projects based on these academic papers. Everything is cited, and normally the grad students are ecstatic to be named as contributing work. Their names don’t show up on the design patent, but if someone digs into it they can see all the work that contributed.
You might not see it at your level, and I am truly sorry for that because you deserve credit for your work.
This isn’t what my understanding of how the system works, but the way you word it, you seem very confident that it is. I’m honestly curious what you read that lead you to this perspective.
Big Pharma likes to hide behind R&D as an excuse for price-gouging American patients and exploiting monopolies, but the math just doesn’t add up,” said CSRxP Executive Director Lauren Aronson. “Big Pharma is investing more boldly in profits, advertising and corporate overhead than in researching new cures.”
That the insurance was cut. Ethics of private drug R&D aside researching costs resources, resources need to be reimbursed, and if you have a drug that heals a rare illness with one dose you sell very few doses. Another drug for another illness might cost as much to research, but you need a dose every month and there’s millions upon millions of patients. Let’s also assume that both drugs cost the same to produce, per dose. Which means that to cover total costs a single dose for the first drug might have to cost two millions, and the other 20ct.
The alternative to this is saying “You have a rare illness, tough luck, we won’t research drugs for it it benefits too few people”.
Places very tightly control the price drugs can be sold for all over the world. They audit the cost of operation, RD, etc and then adjust the price based on a regulated percentage of profit. This means that drug prices, in the rest of the developed world, are far lower than the US. Even in places with non-socialized healthcare like Switzerland, and Japan. Drug companies are still there, still making money, and not increasing drug prices by 1000% because they want to. Then there is the humanitarian practice of subsidizing the cost to patient for exceptionally expensive treatments. For example, the alternative treatment to this drug is more than twice the cost of the drug, it is also less effective, leaving a lot of long term costs. So EU countries, for example, subsidize this drug because it actually ends up saving the tax payers money to do so. This makes it available to the ~1/10000 citizens with the condition, spinal muscular atrophy.
In the US this will likely bankrupt these people, leaving the costs for them and the taxpayer. This ends in a total loss of economic productivity higher than the government just footing the cost for the drug in the first place. The US system is lose/lose. Both the patients and the government pays more than anywhere else. The only people winning here are corporate executives and their shareholders.
The only people winning here are corporate executives and their shareholders.
That’s why I prefaced the whole thing with (more or less)“capitalism aside”: Everything you said also applies to drugs which are still overpriced, but definitely cheaper in the US. The reason this kind of drug is especially expensive, also in places not as fucked as the US, is that it’s a) a one-dose cure and b) for a rare disease. If it were a monthly injection instead of a one-time one it’d still be as expensive but not per dose but per patient-lifetime, and if twice as many had spinal muscular atrophy it’d be roughly half as expensive.
The bargaining EU insurers do with drug manufacturers takes that into account because, as said, otherwise there’d simply be no drugs for those rare diseases.
Overall I think it’d be better for insurers to fund drug research more directly but also then researching cures for rare illnesses would cost a lot of money per manufactured dose.
I think you missed the point of the second part of my statement. That the government pays for expensive treatments because, in the long run, it actually costs less for them to do so, than to hold the patient liable. This means the cost to patient will never be 2.1 million dollars, which accomplishes the goal of drugs not costing that much where it matters.
The only prescription drugs that are cheaper in the US are off brand generics. This is the case because other options are 3-4 times more expensive, on average, than in the EU, so the increased demand for generics creates a manufacturing scale that drops the prices per unit. This price decrease is 20-30% on average. People in the EU are fine with brand names because they aren’t drastically more expensive than generics, even at US generic prices. The end of the day though, they pay less for drugs, as whole, than we do, and no patient is paying 2.1 million dollars for a drug.
People in the EU are fine with brand names because they aren’t drastically more expensive than generics, even at US generic prices.
If I go to the pharmacy I’ll generally get generics, if available, because the insurance is going to give the pharmacist a kickback for finding an option that’s below list price. They’ll also ask doctors annoying questions if they write a product instead of a drug name (Aspirin instead of ASA / acetylsalicylic acid) on a prescription.
In fact if they didn’t do that I’d happily vote for people who’d institute such policies when the next board elections are up.
That the government pays for expensive treatments because, in the long run, it actually costs less for them to do so, than to hold the patient liable.
…that’s the economical equation. The legal equation though is that my insurance is required to pay for everything medically necessary, and that might very much be more expensive than not treating me. Health insurance doesn’t pay welfare for people with, say, severe but manageable OCD: Unemployable yet not in need of assisted living, incurring no more medical costs than the average person. Yet if a cure were available they’d have to cover it.
The economical equation comes into play when paying for or subsidising stuff from fitness apps to whole holiday retreats which are just a scheme to make you take a nutrition and cooking course and similar things.
The cost of the drug. Since the US refuses to socialize Healthcare, people can’t afford insurance if companies can charge millions for their dosages, and keep getting higher. My insurance at work covers me, but adding family is already at $800/month. My take home pay (without family insurance) amounts to $2,200 a month.
Companies charging millions for cures in the US means only the wealthy get to be fixed.
Except Zolgensma’s R&D was funded through the NiH. The only reason why it costs millions per dose is because Novartis bought AveXis for 8.7 billion solely to acquire the rights to Zolgensma.
Wikipedia mentions that it’s based on research from the Institut de Myologie, France, nothing about the NiH.
Also I already made the whole capitalism angle an aside. Plenty of people are talking about it, meaning I don’t need to talk about it. One-dose cures for rare diseases are more expensive per dose than multi-dose treatments for common diseases under any system, that’s what I wanted to say.
I get that y’all yanks hate your medical-industrial complex, and you’re right to, but that doesn’t mean that everything is expensive just because some suit rolled some dice.
“benefited from comparative studies on patients with spinal muscular atrophy”, that’s not “funded the R&D” but “NiH did studies and AveXis read them”. If it was more than that they wouldn’t use that kind of weasel language that only implies, but doesn’t say, things. The rest is approval fast-track which saved AveXis money, but didn’t cost the tax payer a dime.
I’m not saying that they’re not overcharging – of course they are, they definitely are, especially after getting bought up by Novartis and given the US’s inability to actually bargain with drug manufacturers. But this narrative of “taxpayers fronted all the costs” (“R&D was funded through the NiH”, implying all of it) is BS.
And even then, and I fucking knew what I was doing when I said “I don’t wanna talk about the capitalism aspect”, the drug would’ve still been more expensive to develop, per dose, if it was fully state-funded.
Also I wouldn’t be surprised if the French research that led to the whole gene therapy stuff in general was 100x more expensive than those NiH comparative studies. It’s foundational research companies never do that kind of stuff. Probably at least 10-20 PhDs in that overall, funded by the French taxpayer.
I find it scary, but you’re right. Acting decently with respect for those around you is no longer what it takes to win votes. Instead, you should kill puppies, not give a fuck about killing puppies, and deny that you ever did that, despite the actual proof that you did it. Then you’ll get all the votes. Because… amerikah
“We are currently exploring other methods to continue publishing our content in a way that is engaging and interesting to our followers,” Durrant wrote, declining further comment.
Please bear with us while we make our descent into a dystopian hellscape more marketable and boost Twitter engagement. Don’t forget to smash that like button 👍
I always love how baffled podcasters and such are when they report about crimes in other countries where criminals have to be protected from the public (like Germany) and they cannot find mugshots or even a last name.
I agree unless we’re talking about sex crimes like rapists and pedophiles. In those cases, I think we absolutely should know exactly who’s been convicted and whether or not they live near my house.
Reporting on something actively being investigated is how innocent people have their lives ruined by the public. There are registries and maps already for convicted rapists/pedophiles.
I disagree even with post-conviction. I think that being "the sex offender" forever will drive people in corners they would otherwise have steered clear of. Most sex crimes are domestic violence cases and are not about evil men succumbing to their overbearing and perverse sex drive. They are about control and power. So forcing a sex offender who has committed such an act and then payed for his crime into the role of the pervert psychopath forever is actually not helping anybody.
Same goes for pedophiles. Should they be hardcore barred from every goddamn child on earth? Abso-fucking-lutely. But I don't think that exposure is the right tool here. They can be barred from working with children, they can be checked on by police, there is so much one can do to prevent people like them from doing horrible stuff to children. Pushing them onto a corner for what is ultimately a condition they didn't choose (they did choose to act.on it of course) will just make them the monster they are perceived as, even if they would have managed to get themselves under control had they not been made a pariah for their entire life.
But I get that this is pretty much a cultural thing. I for my part think that it is right that we do not expose people on maps here in Germany.
I can appreciate your point of view and I realize not every “sex crime” is a sicko pedophile. Even a teenager sending a nude photo to their boyfriend/girlfriend can be considered a sex crime in many places. So there are gray areas.
However, I stand by the fact that I would absolutely want to know if my next door neighbor was a rapist, pedophile or producer/collector of child porn. That’s just the father/husband in me being protective of my family.
The father in me also wants to know.... Kind of. I only want to know if there is someone that might actually do something. If they don't do anything to my kid, I don't think it's any of my business what this person has done or hasn't done. That's for the courts and police to deal with. Since "only tell me when you're up to no good" is not possible, I actually prefer to not know.
A system whereby authorities check somehow of they have contact to possible victims and only warn those would be ideal, but how would you implement something like that in reality?
news
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.