It’s horrible what a determined harasser can get away with due to bureaucracy and a simple lack of looking before they leap when it comes to government agencies and police.
And they almost never get caught. If they do get caught, there’s often no legal recourse because the laws in this country regarding harassing others are absolute dogshit.
Canada is better in some ways … although we have a lot of room for improvement. Provincial gov’ts set their own standards and rules, but in the province where I was a CFS investigator we had access to back files on individuals that would be checked as soon as a call came in.
We also weren’t allowed to check cupboards because simply being poor is NOT a valid reason to take kids away.
It’s crazy here. A bully at my daughter’s middle school doxxed her on Discord and kept making prank phone calls. The school wouldn’t do anything and there’s basically nothing legally we could do about it either. The phone calls came from a spoofed number, meaning we couldn’t prove who was making them, and apparently no one gets prosecuted for doxxing since no one knows what laws it breaks, so it’s basically legal.
We pulled her out of school because of the bullying in general, and thankfully that girl stopped harassing when my daughter left school. I don’t know what we would do if she had kept it up.
Thanks. Online school will be better for her anyway. She has really bad social anxiety and being in big public school crowds and classrooms full of rowdy kids was always hard for her. The excessive bullying was the thing that broke her and made us pull her out. I had to quit my job to oversee her online schoolwork, but she’s more important than my job and we’ve survived on a single income before.
Her anxiety is really bad. We went to a goodbye party for a friend and there were about 20 people there, and she didn’t want to stay because the kitchen had too many people in it.
I’m like that too and until recently I never knew why. Most of the time I was able to control it, but now that I’m in my 60’s I just don’t have the strength or desire to anymore.
If you haven’t already you may want to check out ADHD in girls, as that’s what I was diagnosed with 2 years ago.
She’s already been diagnosed with it, so that is also a problem. That’s why I would have quit my job to monitor her online school even if the school didn’t require it. To keep her focused. She’s on some (non-scheduled) medication for it and it helps, but not so much that she doesn’t need help in school.
My daughter is a perfectionist when it comes to things she loves. She keeps throwing out her drawings because she thinks they’re never good enough and she’s a really good artist. That article sort of gives perspective on that. I’m going to read it to my daughter later and see if it makes her less likely to throw them out. She’s thrown out whole sketchbooks that I’ve had to rescue from the trash.
Christmas parties at my grandparents house usually meant spending the entire day in the basement because there were too many people. For me It’s usually not a number of people thing, but how many people are in a room relative to its size.
I do want to give you some good news though. Despite my persistent anxiety, I have recently discovered that it has made me incredibly resilient to sudden stressors I wasn’t anxious of prior. I would not be surprised if your daughter builds the same resilience either. It won’t be easy, nor intentional, but it is a small gift from it.
You never know what strengths you will gain from childhood adversity and I hope she gains some through the hardships she’s experienced. And I think it is the same with her, it’s more about how many people are in a room relative to its size, which is a big problem with my wife’s family gatherings because she has a huge family, but she also has a lot of trouble with noise levels and with unfamiliar people, so she has a lot of issues when it comes to social anxiety.
I hate to say it but… you hit the bully back. I was bullied in school, and that was the only thing that made a bully stop. Of course, don’t pound them into the ground, and do it when the teachers aren’t looking.
That was advice I got from a teacher, and it changed my life. Before, I’d gone to a teacher when I was bullied. I tried to ignore the bully (he hit me in the head with a rock for ignoring him). I tried asking the bully to stop.
Then one day my science teacher said, ‘sometimes, you have to hit back’.
And this may lead to all sorts of bad stuff. Adults, and I mean school officials and teachers, should do something with a bully, not that they always do and some even don’t want to admit that they should.
She’s really not confrontational. And this is all mental bullying rather than physical bullying. Punching the kid who doxxed you would just get you in trouble.
She’s a kid who never, ever wants to get in trouble. She will cry if she gets any sort of school punishment and she’s even cried when I’ve done very minor things like raise my voice a little when she did something she shouldn’t have done. She’s just extremely sensitive. I can’t imagine her punching anyone. Also, she has no upper body strength. None. She can barely push open doors in stores and restaurants. And trying to get her to exercise is a fool’s errand.
Reading this makes me so fucking angry. It baffles me how often bullies get away with shit, and even more how their own parents completely lack any form of empathy towards their kid’s victim and will simply refuse to believe their “little angel” is a fucking gremlin. But the bully gets hit back just once, and suddenly the victim gets demonised. Blegh. I hate it so much.
Is simply having/taking drugs even child endangerment? Sure, the stereotype of a drug addict is someone wildly neglecting their kids, but I can totally imagine ways that someone could use drugs while still being a good parent. It’s not like every drug user is an addict. Drugs aren’t all the “pass out while your kids go hungry” type either (stimulants like cocaine are basically the exact opposite of that).
The mere existence of drugs shouldn’t mean anything.
Each state has it’s own rules, but the general rule is misusing alcohol or drugs that causes neglect of the child’s needs.
The fact is just about every parent could be accused of that just by having a family BBQ with crazy Uncle Bill who likes to have a few too many. Technically that falls under neglect.
how is this due to bureaucracy? you think even less oversight and regulation is the answer? bureaucracy is the exact thing that would prevent things like this.
I guess by ‘bureaucracy,’ I meant a government that is so bogged down with these cases that they cut corners and don’t pay attention to case histories. Probably hiring more people rather than more regulation and oversight would be the best thing to do.
I had an Internet stalker for a time who was determined to report me to the police for crimes I committed against children. Her proof? God told her. Yes, she literally thought that God spoke to her and told her who was abusing kids.
It was very stressful, but thankfully, apart from harassing me online, she never successfully convinced any police department to arrest me. I guess the police file their “God told me he’s a criminal” reports in “the special filing location” (aka the trash).
Still, it’s scary to think what grief she could use caused me had she been able to hide her crazy a bit better. (I’ve greatly summarized this tale for this post. The full tale takes place over years, involves multiple people including Boy George and the CEO of Firefox, a “worldwide hacking organization,” and more.)
You always hear about how innovative the US is but the moment there is any talk about requiring industry to find an alternative to something youd think this place was as economically crippled as north korea. An economy so flimsy and industry so devoid of flexibility that it will collapse if required to find an alternative to x y and z but simultaneously supposedly the strongest and most resilient economy in the world.
It’s all a ruse to maximise profits and minimise expenses. They’ll do anything to protect the status quo — they’ve used the tragedy of the commons to manufacture dangerous chemicals on an industrial scale for decades, and banning them now would impact entire industries and product segments; probably to the tune of tens or hundreds of billions.
No multinational corporation is ever going to voluntarily support a change that will kill its profits.
We can exist without forever chemicals and have, we cannot exist and have not ever existed without water.
Lemme pose another extreme then. If water killed people after drinking it for 20 years would you just say we can’t replace it and accept that reality? Or would you at least make a strong effort to replace it?
“Forever chemicals” arent water. We have survived without it. It is currently just really inconvenient to do so again given what these substances are used for. I am a chemist. We have replaced things before and were almost certainly going to do it again. Companies just have to give a shit enough to make use of our inginuity to do so. But unfortunately they dont care unless they have a legal gun to their head so here we are
“Forever chemicals” arent water. We have survived without it
Uh. Yeah. Way to avoid my point completely. But sure - we don’t consume “forever chemicals” out of necessity. Guess that chemistry degree is really paying off.
My degree is directly relevant to the topic at hand. I am qualified to have an informed opinion on the feasibility of replacing forever chemicals. You on the other hand, are not.
There are replacements but none as cheap and easy to manufacture (yet… which is the whole point of R and D) which is why companies use them. There is very little pressure forcing companies to switch to alternatives and as long as that is the case, they will still use them rather than do the work needed to phase them out. This is not a problem because we cannot phase them out but because there is no economic driving force to use alternatives.
Making things dirt cheap IS NOT an acceptable excuse to fuck up the environment. We have one planet to live on. This is like pissing in the same office water cooler you drink out of because it costs 50 cents to use the bathroom.
“I’m not saying the example I just used in this situation is an example that should ever be used in this situation.”
And if scientists can’t “magic” new chemicals, I wonder how they came up with the ones addressed in this article? Besides, isn’t capitalism supposed to “drive innovation” and all that? Amazing how that suddenly goes right out the window the minute anyone questions the status quo or, god forbid, the profit that comes from destroying the earth and the people on it.
In almost every case I can think of there is an older solution, it was better, but its less profitable. They’re pushing cheap junk out. PFAS chemicals are not the best solution to much. Lightweight waterproofing, maybe?
The problem is that the industry has already made replacements and the replacements were bad too. Gen X was a replacement for PFOS and PFOA, all 3 are PFAS compounds. Either we have to completely abstain, greatly limit usage, find a magic way to treat it, or replace it. Odds are whatever wonder replacement we invent will be found to be the next super bad thing in 20 years.
Magazine size laws aren’t really effective at doing anything. Up in Canada you can’t have a rifle magazine with more than 5 rounds. However, almost all of the magazines are full size magazines that have been modified to hold fewer rounds. All of the responsible owners leave them at 5, but with a minute or two of work you could turn most of them into full size again. We don’t have mass shootings every day.
Gun violence in America is a culture issue. You’re broken.
The most effective part of our gun laws is preventing violent offenders from obtaining a license (and maybe having a license to start with, I guess).
Beyond that, almost every other part of our laws are a ridiculous dog and pony show meant to appease some group or other in some way that’s usually completely ineffective.
Exactly, it’s very hard to respect the anti gun crowd when they focus on banning things that don’t even matter beyond comfort or aesthetics. It’s just all feel good bs that does nothing but hinder the average joe
You seem to be making quite the set of assumptions.
Those of us in favor of firearm ownership do actively want change - but you might be surprised to hear we want changes which actually address underlying issues rather than nonsense about magazine capacities and scary black rifle.
I humped my m4 and m16a2 for 7 fucking years, get fucked with your ‘black rifle scary’ bullshit, sideways.
how are large capacity magazines in any way ‘controversial’ to you fuckwits? fewer rounds in the mag require more reloads bright eyes, it’s pretty fucking simple. you assholes want to justify bump stocks and rotary triggers, you’re not interested in safely keeping and using firearms, you’re interested in not having to give up anything to anyone when the issue is firearms. no compromise, no sanity, just bullshit games about nomenclature and freedumbs.
it’s always telling to me, too, the ones who’s minds get changed when their family members are shot. cause that’s what it takes with your fuckwits, you have neither the imagination or empathy so it literally requires one of your family getting shot at school to actually dig in that theere MAY BEEE A PROBLEM with 400 MILLION FIREARMS in a country of 330 million people.
so yeah, I got 'sumptions. I’m assuming you’re some bolo fuckmuppet who loves his AR more than he thinks kids should be able to go to school terrorized about getting shot.
I humped my m4 and m16a2 for 7 fucking years, get fucked with your ‘black rifle scary’ bullshit, sideways.
Cool. No one cares.
how are large capacity magazines in any way ‘controversial’ to you fuckwits? fewer rounds in the mag require more reloads bright eyes, it’s pretty fucking simple. you assholes want to justify bump stocks and rotary triggers, you’re not interested in safely keeping and using firearms, you’re interested in not having to give up anything to anyone when the issue is firearms. no compromise, no sanity, just bullshit games about nomenclature and freedumbs.
it’s always telling to me, too, the ones who’s minds get changed when their family members are shot. cause that’s what it takes with your fuckwits, you have neither the imagination or empathy so it literally requires one of your family getting shot at school to actually dig in that theere MAY BEEE A PROBLEM with 400 MILLION FIREARMS in a country of 330 million people.
Did you have a point anywhere in that rant and hyperbole?
so yeah, I got 'sumptions. I’m assuming you’re some bolo fuckmuppet who loves his AR more than he thinks kids should be able to go to school terrorized about getting shot.
Ah, very rational.
It might surprise you to learn I’m quite the proponent of actually addressing underlying issues rather than clutching pearls about sCaRy bLaCk RiFLes.
You’ll note this is the second time I’ve provided such an analysis - it seems you didn’t bother to actually check before violently abusing your keyboard.
Your bullshit link doesn’t do shit to reduce the number of firearms, bolo. You still can’t recognize there’s a math problem here and clutch to your premise even though it’s flawed. Gonna block you now, because you’re dumber than dogshit and genuinely aren’t interested in stopping kids from getting murdered.
How do you write something like this without realising what a cunt you sound?
This person is talking about deeply mentally ill people and literal wife beaters losing their guns and your response is to not only oppose that, but to oppose it on the ground of "But they paid for them! You can’t just take away things someone paid for! ".
Oh sorry that’s not fair, you vomited up the words “due process”, like that’s something the pro-gun community believes in as the openly fantasise about executing people on the spot for property crimes and not just something other people built that you think you can spit back in their face.
Do you know why it’s hard to respect the pro-gun crowd?
Because when a legal gun owner in Ulvade used a legally purchased gun to mutilate a room full of children beyond recognition and the entire world asked “What can we change to stop this from happening?”, do you know what their pro-gun community replied?
“I don’t know, maybe something to do with doors or mental health. All I know is that the gun laws in Texas are brilliant, if not too strict. There is nothing I would have changed and selling guns to someone with a history of rape threats and animal abuse is exactly what the founding fathers wanted”.
But yeah sorry we don’t know the intricacies of your little trinkets.
Exactly. They act like they know everything and ignore when you try to educate them. Banning any feature of a gun isn’t going to matter, nothing short of a full on ban is going to put a dent in shootings and that’s just not going to happen without civil war.
Arguably addressing root issues would have profound effect… though I tend to agree it won’t happen without civil war, given the current state of partisan politics and waves vaguely at this post
What particular laws have been “completely ineffective”? How are you measuring that efficiency, if not by comparing to countries without them?
We get it, gun owners get salty because they’re not allowed all the toys they want. Their natural state is “tantrum” from America to Canada to Australia to the UK.
But that’s too bad for them. While they may decided that increased risk of people being murdered is fine because they don’t think it will be their family, those countries have decided that their hurt feelings aren’t as important as other people’s lives.
And oh look, they’re way better places to send you kids to school or walk around at night. Who’d have fucking known?
Yeah, as a leftist who likes guns for fun, survival, self defense, and theoretical political unrest… I still think it’s ridiculous we don’t have gun licenses in the US. Or a gun ownership registry.
Bans restrict freedom for everyone.
License and registration lets you maintain that freedom for most, but still restrict it where necessary (e.g. crime, mental health), and more easily track and punish those who misuse firearms.
No. Canada has a whole host of prohibitions, and restrictions. The sale and transfer of handguns was recently made illegal (source), in 2020, 1500 models of what the Canadian government deemed to be an “Assault Rifle” were banned (source), Canada has extreme restrictions on the transportation of “Restricted Firearms” (handguns are an example of this) in that, to be able to transport them, you must obtain an “Authorization to transport”, to be able to carry a “Restricted”, or “Prohibited” firearm, one must obtain an “Authorization to Carry” (unless, possibly, it is for wilderness protection (source)), and, as outlined in the Canadian Criminal Code, and the Firearms Act, there are also many restrictions on the general transport, handling, storage, display, and transfer of firearms. Not to mention that in addition to all of this, as outlined in the Firearms Act, every firearm owner must be licensed for the use of “non-restricted” firearms (Possession and Acquisition License, PAL), and “restricted” firearms (Restricted Possession and Acquisition License, RPAL), respectively. The acquisition of each of these licenses requires a 1 day course, the successful passing of both a practical, and written exam, and a background check performed by the RCMP. After filling out, and submitting one’s application, the prospective firearm owner’s application, as mandated by legislation, will sit idle with the RCMP for a 28-day cooldown period. Only after that cooldown period has completed will they begin to process one’s application, which can then take much longer depending on the speed of the government at any given time.
I can provide no guarantee that this list is exhaustive.
A magazine is literally just a box of certain geometry with a spring inside it. They can be 3D printed or made by hand. No government anywhere can stop the signal. Instead we need to focus on the cultural rot that made narcissists decide it was OK to assault random strangers.
thank you!! this country has a narcissism problem. the hyper-focus on individuality and celebrities not only encourages it, but celebrates it. lots of people look up to narcissistic psychopaths as if being a ruthless egotistical asshole is something to strive for.
i knew a guy that had one poster up, and it was of Tony Montana from Scarface. he would show it off to people as if he were unaware he was indirectly telling everyone that he was an asshole. the guy i knew looked up to a machiavellian drug dealer that easily murdered anyone that got in his way of wealth and power, despite that Tony had a horrible relationship with his wife, was paranoid, and ended up dying from his own shit behaviors.
i knew a girl with a social circle that was all about social media likes. her and her best friend went to Hawaii to take pictures to post on instagram and facebook. i mean, they spent thousands of dollars and planned their days out in Hawaii around going to scenic places so they could waste hours taking and retaking 100s of pictures to post a few of the best ones. these girls had terrible relationships characterized by antagonism and competition. they would hit on each other’s boyfriends and cheat on their own, then get surprisingly upset if anyone else did a 1/10 of what they did to their so-called friends and boyfriends. it was disgusting how they treated each other. even their own individual mentality was marred by these delusions of grandiosity and entitlement that weren’t rooted in rationality or care for others.
whenever i visit other countries, i’m refreshed by the humanity of people there. i think it’s one of the reasons i like traveling so much. i just cannot deal with the narcissism here. it’s exhausting and alienating. anyone have any tips on how to remedy these feelings i get?
For one to be able to utter such words openly is evidence that one enjoys the existence of non-zero amounts of freedom 😉 one must not be complacent in their good-fortune to be born into a society with such freedoms. There are many places in the world with no such guarantees.
I do pretty much whatever the fuck I want every day in the USA. I love the freedom I have here, but it’s a lot better when you’re not poor. I’ve had it both ways and the freedom definitely scales with dollar count.
Yeah, 85% of traceable guns used for crime came from the US. Our asshole neighbours refusal to get their shit together is killing Canadians because they consider their right to kill black people knocking at their door to outweigh the good of everyone else.
And then if we criticize them, they’ll tell us to mind our own business, as if it’s a harmless hobby that doesn’t hurt anyone else.
Yeah, I know, I’m being a little over the top in this comment, but all I can do is air frustrations. Guns are like every other issue conservatives care about. You’ll never change their mind. The US is too many school shootings in to admit they have a problem.
Hold up. Canada’s failure to manage its borders is our issue? This, even aside from how you apparently only care that crime was committed with those darn American handguns rather than that crime was committed. Aren’t you supposed to be the country doing better?
Also, what’s this about right to kill black people? Is this more Works Cited: Crack Pipe nonsense?
The US is too many school shootings in to admit they have a problem.
Lmao are you really shifting blame from the Canadian criminal to the American gun? You really believe the criminal wouldn’t have committed the crime without a gun? Like above nothing short of a total ban will impact crime, and that’s not going to happen for a few reasons. We are all frustrated from crazies killing people but the solution isn’t in the guns, we need to treat the person.
Also you seem a bit brain washed thinking gun owners just want to kill black people. Maybe you should think hard about that line and who gains from you believing that.
We really could solve so many issues if we just did the basics. Stronger background checks, better gun storage laws, provide basic firearm education (maybe even make it mandatory).
I’m pro gun. But think about the people you know who should never own one. That’s what we should be focusing on. Weeding out irresponsible gun owners and harsher punishments for those that ignore the laws.
Every pro gunner likes to use murder as a comparison against gun laws, “well murder is illegal, but people still do it!” Yeah, but can you imagine how high murder rates would skyrocket if they were legal? You’re not going to stop all gun deaths, but we could do a shit ton to at least minimize them the best we can.
It’s so frustrating because all we need to do is implement common sense gun restrictions to keep them out of the wrong hands, but nooooo. That takes too much brain power for half of the US, apparently.
I agree with all of this. I think almost all of Canada’s gun control laws are sensible. We have sensible laws about transport, storage, safety training, and other things. Magazine size and banning weapons that look scary is not effective though.
Stronger background checks, better gun storage laws, provide basic firearm education (maybe even make it mandatory).
I’d love to see your source for such positions, especially regarding the magnitude of improvement expected and the justification for such.
We already have extensive background checks for nearly every firearm purchase. I’ve yet to see support for the notion that any meaningful percentage of firearm violence is committed by those who legally purchased a firearm but somehow bypassed a background check.
Similarly, I’ve yet to see any support for the notion that legally requiring safe storage - constitutional violation concerns aside - would make any meaningful improvement. This, at least, one could do much to promote without adding restrictions - I’ve yet to see any blue team support for, say, subsiding safes.
And similarly, there’s no blue team support for subsided, equitable, shall-issue training and licensing - and a lack of indication it would make a difference.
I’m pro gun. But think about the people you know who should never own one. That’s what we should be focusing on. Weeding out irresponsible gun owners and harsher punishments for those that ignore the laws.
Oh? Who are those people? How would you objectively identify such?
Every pro gunner likes to use murder as a comparison against gun laws, “well murder is illegal, but people still do it!” Yeah, but can you imagine how high murder rates would skyrocket if they were legal? You’re not going to stop all gun deaths, but we could do a shit ton to at least minimize them the best we can.
Ironically, you highlight the reason such a highlight is raised - you do nothing at all about the underlying issue (violence and the pressures for it) and, instead, focus only on the fact firearms are a tool used; tacking on more restrictions which create additional burden for those already doing nothing wrong yet are unlikely to meaningfully impact the crime is absurd. You ignore that the current laws and proposed laws continue to ignore the problems.
It’s so frustrating because all we need to do is implement common sense gun restrictions to keep them out of the wrong hands, but nooooo. That takes too much brain power for half of the US, apparently.
“Common sense” is such a laughably disingenuous phase here. It implies the solutions are obvious and intuitive yet the solutions proposed do nothing for the issue at all beyond setting the stage for fire and fury when such measures are rightly resisted.
You are right that there are a few simple things we can do to meaningfully impact things… but you might be surprised as to what they are.
So are you saying you think banning all guns would be the solution?
I wouldn’t disagree. I just don’t know if it would be entirely possible given how deep the gun culture in America is. I’m just trying to come up with solutions that would make everyone happy.
When it comes to gun storage laws, no. Not having random gun inspections. But say in a situation like a young child getting ahold of a gun that has just been left out, which seems to happen frequently, that should be a massive penalty. I feel like there should be more laws that penalize irresponsible gun owners much more harshly and maybe people would treat them with more respect.
I live in an area of the country where it seems like a bunch of people who are idiots and completely irresponsible love to have a firearm. I vividly remember hanging out with an older buddy years ago driving down a gravel road, he thought he saw a cat on the side so he pulled over really fast and grabbed his handgun so he could shoot it. Those are the type of guys I do not think should have guns. They’re not fucking toys. They’re literal machines made for death. They need to be treated as such.
That’s just my view though. I’m sure there’s others out there with more knowledge on the subject that could come up with better solutions. I just feel like no one is and it’s annoying as shit.
Imagine AOC stroking hers BF dick, while he fondles her Tits. In a Theater. With Video-Footage. Imagine what Bobblehead would say to that. Craaaazy low standards in the Republican party.
Good catch, there's only one cock involved! Clearly they should use single target weapons, AOE attacks on a single target are suboptimal and are just gonna result in lower DPS. You're never gonna encounter multiple cocks in every combat scenario (lol we should all be so lucky), so you gotta adapt to the situation. Use the right weapon ability!! IDK, maybe OP is a noob.
As long as the AOE is from a ritual spell it’s OK. Then it’s just added DPS (or defense) on top of whatever attacks you have lined up.
For encounters like this though you really don’t need much. Hold Monster and Speak with Animals are all you really need for dealing with Boebert and her companion.
Fourteen dead babies, I don’t care about her. She’s fucked. But what fucking hospital has 14 dead babies? Are you saying you cant identify a pattern after 4 or 5?
The heads of the hospital should be gutted.
Call that place “The dead baby hospital” because wtf.
She alternated between giving them insulin, injecting air into their bloodstream, and overfeeding them. The babies that recovered most likely did so either because they weren’t in bad shape to begin with, or because they coded while a competent doctor or nurse was on call and able to stabilize them, or because of luck. One of the babies she attempted to kill survived, but has severe cerebral palsy and requires a feeding tube. There’s no definitive way to say that the nurse’s attempts on her life caused her condition, as she was already a preemie and at risk for multiple complications, but I’d say the lack of durability definitely led to at least some lasting damage for some of the babies that recovered.
I’m not a doctor so this is me just trying to piece together info from other sources, but it sounds like overfeeding can cause a lot of issues that premature babies aren’t developed enough to deal with on their own, like severe gas and bloating. Depending on how delicate the baby is, this might lead to a cascade of problems that are difficult to diagnose, treat, and recover from. With babies that underdeveloped, even something as benign as eating too much can become deadly.
But again, not a doctor, and a quick Google search turned up a bunch of complicated articles that don’t really clarify. I just know that it was one of her strategies for worsening the babies’ condition.
Depending on why the infant is in the neonatal unit, specific food can have extremely deleterious effects. Disorders of metabolism are rare, but not as rare as you think, and most are controlled with specific diets. So if she purposely fed the wrong food, and in large amounts, it could absolutely kill certain populations. If an otherwise ‘healthy’ infant, the most likely cause due to overfeeding would be vomiting, and then aspiration of the vomitus. Infants, especially neonates, are very unlikely to be able to protect their airway. Even if a patient is already on the operating table, survival rates of aspirating vomitus is only 50% or so. That’s why you don’t eat/drink before surgery, btw.
Multiple doctors came forward to say that their concerns were ahot down by hospital administrators. They cared more about a bad mark on their record than a someone harming newborns under their watch.
She worked in neo natal. That is already “at risk” births. Premature. Addicts. All sorts of things that are risky to begin with. I’m not justifying anything she or the administration did. However it is to be expected at times in those units. Sounds heartless but my family was in those departments for many years.
Okay but the mortality numbers for her unit pretty clearly and obviously pointed to the fact that something was happening here other than the natural deaths one would expect in a NICU
They said other than when she was working, and before and after she left the number was around or close to 0-2 per year, so pretty obviously an anomaly and certainly worthy of an investigation. The doctors that reported her were punished by the administrators and actually forced to apologise to her so I think they are pretty guilty in the circumstances.
Looks like she might have targeted higher risk babies so it’s harder to catch, and of course many murders seem to be really good at faking feelings and appearing innocent. One part in the article makes me think all the victims were premature births, and that some of them were especially at risk due to that.
I’d say deaths in hospital aren’t rare. Especially in premature babies where survival could go either way. If you’re going to murder babies, a hospital is probably the place where you’re going to go unnoticed the longest.
That said, the timeline is pretty damning. Over a decade she’d still be doing it, but this was all in the space of just over a year.
A social worker’s report attached to the complaint said the couple was asked how they would feel if a child in their care identified as LGBTQ or struggled with their gender identity. Kitty Burke responded by saying “let’s take the T out of it” and called gender-affirming care “chemical castration,” according to the report. She also said, “I’m going to love you the same,” but that the child “would need to live a chaste life.” Both Kitty and Michael Burke expressed hesitation around using a transgender or nonbinary person’s preferred pronouns, the social worker’s report noted.
Michael Burke told the social worker he’d been to gay weddings and would “likely attend” his child’s wedding if they were LGBTQ, according to the report, and the couple said they wouldn’t kick a child out of their home for being LGBTQ or subject them to conversion therapy.
Following the interview, the social worker issued an “approval with conditions, specifically around religion and LGBTQIA++ related issues.” Their application was later denied by the department’s Licensing Review Team, the complaint states.
“If you give me an LGBTQ kid, I’m going to be a horrible parent. Wait, why did you deny my parenting application? This is discrimination!”
I don’t know if I need to provide bonifides for being queer positive and not asking in bad faith, but why are there two pluses in that? It just makes me think of C++ and seems… jokey.
Many just say queer. Or LGBT. Companies and news organizations can’t really settle on one thing to call us. Imo, LGBT+ gets the point across without being excessive.
Unispace found that nearly half (42%) of companies with return-to-office mandates witnessed a higher level of employee attrition than they had anticipated.
One aspect these articles don’t usually address beyond the attrition rate, is the quality of those leave is usually the highest. So its a double whammy. Not only are you losing workers, you’re losing your best workers. Those best workers have mobility because they are in demand for their skills or ability to execute. So what an employer is left with is even worse, many of those remaining that are lower skilled or less ambitious so their can’t leave or choose not to because they aren’t interested in high achievement at work.
The company’s most valuable asset is their workers. Return-to-office is a loud screaming message to all the company’s workers that “butts in seats” or extraction of the worker’s dollars for corporate tax cuts from municipalities are more important that the worker’s comfort and preference. That leads to the death of companies.
I don’t often toot my own horn, but this is basically me. My work is pushing for people to move to LA into the office after being almost fully remote for a few years. I’ve never set foot in LA, and was hired fully remote. They’re struggling to hire junior devs because their frontend is almost wholly custom JavaScript and nearly completely undocumented. They’re currently stuck with expensive senior devs. I could easily take my title elsewhere for more than they’re paying me, but I like the lax work environment enough to stick around.
The last I heard about the move back to office was February, and they just hired more people out of state. I don’t think they’re pushing for it anymore, haha
100% this. We literally lost our best and brightest and the end of the pandemic. When I bailed it was B and C grade. Made the last few months very difficult.
Not only that, but your best workers often help the others get better, as well as do code reviews, etc. which means the less good workers will also not be as good in the future, and you’ll spend more time fixing their mistakes.
the quality of those [who] leave is usually the highest.
That’s the Dead Sea Effect. Those who can leave the easiest, do so next in each cycle (once the company crosses the fuckit line). These will be the most valuable.
“Matt Healy undoubtedly just made it worse for queer Malaysians who actually live here, and have to face the consequences because we all know our politicians are gonna use this to further their agenda,” Carmen Rose, a Malaysian drag queen and performer, said on Twitter.
No, he didn’t make it worse. The government is making it worse
Because keeping a low profile is how they can manage to survive in a homophobic society. Everyone is grandstanding while living in liberal western societies, ignoring how hard things are for less fortunate people.
As if events like Stonewall never happened in the west. How did those western societies became liberal? Because people fought back, blood has been spilled to reach where those societies are now. Unfortunately keeping a low profile will not progress society and will keep the community at risk. Jews kept a low profile in Europe for centuries and then were exterminated.
Muslim is not a static or homogenous thing. The majority Muslim bit doesn’t need to change - the majority of Muslims need to become more understanding.
They aren’t but they are the majority if the religious population by such a considerable margin that whether Christians supported equality or not it would not matter.
There are about ten times as many Muslims as there are Christians in Malaysia so in this case it is the homophobia of the Islamic population that needs to change to make the culture shift.
EhList said Malaysia can never be decent for LGBTQI+ as long as they are majority Muslim. Why can a majority Christian Country have decent LGBTQI+ rights but not a Muslim one?
This is about Malaysia though. Indonesia doesn’t have sharia law except for one region, called Aceh. Homosexuality is not illegal in Indonesia though the LGBT do face intolerance from the state.
The west used to be all hardcore Christians and hated LGBT just as much as Muslims do today. Like homosexuality wasn’t legalized until 1967 in the UK. Before that time gay people, like Alan Turing, were chemically castrated. Change came because people stood up and fought for their rights and put their lives on the line. Not because everyone became atheist.
the rise in acceptance of LGBT rights is mirrored by less frequent church attendance in the USA. IIRC that was true fir the UK as well. In most societies the dominant religion is typically anti-LGBT.
Change takes time, decades, often centuries. You are asking a society that has norms similar to 100years ago in Europe to accelerate to where the West currently is. I dont think you understand how slow things improved for lgbtq in the West and how recent that change is.
Despite things not being perfect, lgbtq acceptance is 50%+ in most western countries. That means it usually isnt socially acceptable to go against lgbtq, neither for the people, nor for the politicians.
Now imagine a society whose people oppose lgbtq by 95%. Who is going to stick their neck out? Their neck will simply be chopped off. Change will take time. Slowly those lgbtq people will make lgbtq acceptable within their inner circle and then their inner circle will make lgbtq acceptable in a wider but small part of society(ie liberals) and that small part of society will slowly be able to make lgbtq acceptable as a societal norm by “converting” more and more people.
The structure does not exist in these societies for lgbtq people to fight for their rights. Their best hope is that their inner circle can accept them and they can live a normal life while keeping a low profile, they are still at stage 1.
Or to put it in a different perspective, what will happen to you if you go to a plaza in Pyongyang and demand democracy/human rights? Do you think that would be smart? Or productive? You will just get arrested and be sent to a prison camp. And it is even worse with lgbtq rights, because a lot of north koreans can get on board with democracy and human rights but in these societies, 95% of the people are actively against lgbtq.
PS I am not interested in debating about homosexuality in 1920s Germany or whatever because that is a niche that completely ignores actual societal historical facts.
True but they are still not at the pushing point. They are on “maybe i can get friends who accept me for who i am without anyone betraying my trust” stage. Once they can somewhat reliably do that, ie once there is a small part of non lgbtq allies, then with those allies they can start pushing.
10% is a when an idea is becoming mainstream and mass adoption is greatly accelerating.
“When the number of committed opinion holders is below 10 percent, there is no visible progress in the spread of ideas. It would literally take the amount of time comparable to the age of the universe for this size group to reach the majority,” said SCNARC Director Boleslaw Szymanski, the Claire and Roland Schmitt Distinguished Professor at Rensselaer. “Once that number grows above 10 percent, the idea spreads like flame.”
It’s not like things are sunshines and roses for gay people in liberal western societies. Pride parades started in the US from a riot when they couldn’t take it anymore. The UK chemically castrated Alan Turing. Hiding is a good way for the individual to survive, but to forward progress for the group in the future, attention needs to be brought to these issues.
Attention is only beneficial when you have the correct political conditions to do it. Drawing attention at the wrong time gets you cracked down upon or worse, killed.
An absolutist position on this is how western liberals continually contribute to worsening matters for lgbt people in the global south. Stick to your fucking lane and let people from that country handle their local issues, they understand the local culture and the conditions better than you do.
As someone who lives in SE Asia, I agree. The west have no idea, they think they know it all, judging everybody from that ivory tower they call moral high ground.
It’s such a difficult topic. As an lgbt person I want the lgbt people in those countries leading the strategy to get change. Not a bunch of people that want to do regime change for the sake of US interests while weaponising marginalised peoples as a tool to create consent for it among the US home population.
All this does is make people in the global south see lgbt issues as a tool of US oppression. It actively harms efforts of local lgbt people in achieving the necessary cultural change in views because people see it as necessary to oppose it in order to protect their economic interests from becoming a US colony or vassal.
Alan Turing was castrated in the 1950s and has been posthumously pardoned at this point. The first pride parade in the US after Stonewall was in the 1970s.
Using examples half a century or more old as a comparison to what’s happening today is incredibly disengenuious.
Yes, stay hidden, try to curate and open up to your inner circle. They are still at step 1. They need to cultivate lgbtq acceptance slowly at this stage or they will be crashed.
Surprised Carmen Rose is able to tweet while licking authoritarian bigoted boots at the same time, impressive. They’d be stoked if Nazis came back I’m sure, they have some great boots.
Try reading the article. Homophobia is on the rise in Indonesia and bullshit performative activism is not going to positively impact that. Rose without question has a more informed perspective than a British “rockstar” douchebag who has done this performative shit in other nations and seen similar criticism.
As someone who was gay in the USA before it was safe to be out I get why Rose is concerned and Im flabbergasted at those who cannot see how incredibly fucking stupid Healy’s acts are.
But have you ever taken out a full page ad to insist that a certain group of black people are responsible for a crime even when you had no idea whether or not that was the case?
The best part is when asked if JD would be ready to go day one if needed, Trump said that VP doesn’t matter and people only care about the President. So which is it? Does the VP have no power and no real use, or do they have all this secret power to set policy and control the Justice Department?
Yeah, but she’s simultaneously so powerful that she convinced several elected officials in New York to risk prison time by attacking one of her political opponents in exchange for…? Nothing? And oh by the way, he wasn’t her actual political opponent when the prosecution started, 4D chess over there.
But also so stupid she couldn’t pass the bar exam and can’t form a complete sentence without a teleprompter.
The only fruits I’ve interacted with were strictly of the plant-bearing type. I have heard nuts say the weirdest things, but that’s expected from the average republican.
They INVENTED modern imperialism, first trialling it in the “Irish plantations” starting in the 16th century, long before America’s colonies. If one could go back in time to stop anything…
Before that Greece, before that Persia, before that Assyria, before that Babylonia, before that Egypt, before that Sumeria… Sometime before that Cro Magnon Man. The list gets bigger; The Mongols, Timurids and other turkic groups like the Mughals, the Han…
Even specific to the British Isles (the Angles, Saxons and Jutes; then the Vikings; then the Normans (French descendants of Vikings).
In other words all roads don’t lead to Rome, it’s just a thing that humans do.
with the difference that the old romans preferred to integrate other tribes into their empire and raise their living standards to pacify them - and not slaughter them.
Britain did in fact refuse to help Simon Bolivar set up democracies in Latin America so… Arguably… The answer is just… Yes? It’s both? They did both of the things?
Migration was the one big issue that carried Brexit. It made them all forget anything else and blindly believe brexiters, if only there were no more brown people coming into the country.
It was the racist vote.
But besides that, there is racism everywhere. How its dealt with is the difference. I’m personally very glad to see the big counter protests now. They have become too confident to be loud about their hate again and we all have to put them back into their place, making it clear that this is not acceptable.
It’s a real mixed bag from what I know. They got rid of slavery much earlier, I don’t think they have the baggage of Jim Crow that US frankly still has. Afaik black people were more accepted in society. But the recent immigration trend changed things and there is real anti Islam sentiment afaik. I’m really not that well versed in it though.
Immigrants always get blamed in troubled times. It’s a story as old as time. If wealth wasn’t so concentrated and everyone had a good job and a nice place and whatever no one would care about migrants.
Yes migrants also get jobs and live in houses but they’re not the underlying cause.
They didn’t got rid of slavery, they got rid of chattel slavery (with the State paying massive amounts of money to the slave owners) and replaced it with a different kind based on debt.
Just like the idea that Britain isn’t racist, the idea that Britain were the first to end slavery is Image Management Propaganda Bollocks anchored on misrepresenting what actually happens.
Settle down mate. I’m Australian, and well aware of the mistreatment of Australian aboriginals.
I’m not going to defend the behavior of my forebears, my comment was merely pointing out that this is not a uniquely Australian problem, and that colonisation never goes well for the indigenous.
In prehistory, homo sapiens colonised the entire world and either murdered, massacred, out bred or otherwise displaced competing hominids to the point of their extinction. A pattern repeated the world over ever since. How well are Russians treating Ukranians, or Israelis treating Palestinians ?
Best place I ever lived in: organized without being controlling and oppressive (as you would find in Germanic nations), good quality of life, genuinely moral liberal, good salaries, great work-life balance, with Proportional Vote hence consensus politics and with people who naturally behave in a more egalitarian way (in all senses) than pretty much everywhere else. As I see it socially they’re decades ahead of the UK and Portugal, though they’ve had right-wing neoliberal governments for over a decade now and it shows.
Would’ve gone back recently if it wasn’t for their massive housing bubble making rentals extremely expensive pretty much anywhere in the country.
They do have one thing I really dislike which is Scandinavian levels of personal taxes but with much lower levels of Public Services than most of Europe, probably because their ultra-low taxation for companies results in pretty much the entire budget of the Dutch state being funded from taxation of people so you end up with people paying above European-average taxes and getting below European-average levels of Public Services.
I lived for over a decade in Britain and had both afro-descendant and muslim friends who were discriminated against over there, even before Brexit.
Even I got discriminated against because of being Portuguese (though nowhere are much as they did).
Britain has for long been one of the most rightwing countries in Europe, it’s just that they’re very good at image management and their far right leaders are posh types with upper class education and accents, not slang-using rabble rousing loudmouths with low-class accents.
I always like to say that the USA kept all the worst parts of British culture. That’s not to say that Americans aren’t decent generally speaking. Just that…idk…imperialistic tendencies, systemic racism, highly stratified social class dynamics, random violence…kinda shitty politics dominated by 2 parties who are centre/right and shifting further right.
It’s just funny that Biden tried everything from ‘convicted felon’ to ‘crazy guy’ and his surrogates added things like ‘rapist’ and ‘dictator’ and such and none of it got under their skin.
Saw on good point on here the other day. It gets under their skin so bad to be called weird because they know they are and their entire platform rests on convincing you that they aren’t
Because their entire political platform is about superficial attacks on others while painting themselves as the cool normal people. Their entire existence hinges that they are normal relateble people, when you call them weird it means that they are in the same class that they’re attacking. It’s like those superficial bullies from high-school who in reality are tremendously insecure.
To a fascist, weird = not normal = one of the OTHERS = an evil and dangerous abomination that must be eliminated one way or the other for the good of the Reich.
It’s also a simple word that they all know. You could try to analyze them and talk about their sociopathic tendencies and it’ll fly over their head. Call them “weird” though and they know that word very well.
Might be why it took so long to find messaging that hit. “Fascist”? They shrug it off and call you the real fascist for calling them fascist. “Deplorable”? Too mean; Democrats aren’t allowed to be mean, and women definitely aren’t.
“Weird” is what threads the needle. Who would have guessed that even weeks ago, much less in 2016?
It’s amazing how many people don’t understand this. Prices go up for a long time and almost never come down after because that would lead to losses and a stock dive. But the narrative is that it’s greed. It’s not bloody greed, it’s Capitalism’s process. Want that to change, stop putting money in the stock market.
I’d love to, but I have 2 locked-in RRSPs that can only be invested in the stock market (from former jobs). It pisses me off to no end that I have exactly zero control over them … and have just (in the past 2 years) gained what I lost in the 2008 crash.
Fuck Wall St and fuck jobs that force me into the stock market.
worked for a food distrobutor during covid and they had a meeting about jacking up prices on covid supplies and all other items. At the time I said the covid supplies was a big issue. Nope, full steam ahead. I even did a whistlr blower complaint to the FTC with all the documents. Nothing ever came of it.
My work magically got a supply of N95 masks early in Covid. It was unexpected, so we didn’t have a plan or a system for them. Didn’t think to have a limit or anything.
A crew from Albert Lee bought every single one, took them back to their store, and sold them at 100% markup.
I was at the grocery store yesterday. A single shrinkflation Hershey’s bar was $2.49. Some prices have doubled in 1-5 years… Are you fucking kidding me!?
Ain’t that the truth. If it were a $3 chocolate bar made by a chocolatier in a real shop with a decent amount of cocoa in it that might be worth it. But it’s really disappointing mass produced slightly vomit-tasting brown wax, it’s disgusting and barely worth $1.
news
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.