Good, because that is fucking bullshit. Imagine if there was a “black panic defense” where someone claimed that they lost control violently because a black person made a pass at them?
Or even better(?) a “white panic defence” for non-whites (hold for crowd’s audible gasp). The fact someone came up with that garbage is yet another example of how absurd it is getting over there.
The comparison is that the cops are using something about the person to be an excuse for violently panicking. Not literally the same thing, but the same kind of fear based on who the person is.
That’s where they got the “xyz panic defense” from!
“The Big Scary Black Man™️ got on the elevator with me! I had to mace him because he said HeLlO”
(Yeah. That was my security guard. He was in uniform, starting his shift and you just maxed him for starting his rounds.)(fortunately it was that cheap pink pepper spray that- for the record- can’t stop any one for shit. It’s just… irritating.)
Hmm. Sounds woke. Republicans awaking to wokeness? Gotta try something when your base is infatuated with Old Sleepy Don, who can’t stop defaming E. Jean Carroll and doesn’t have anything bad to say about white supremacists.
I’d say that you and I should join some right-wing forums to make the point that this is “woke” and “anti-Republican”, but I strongly suspect many of them are already saying it themselves.
Exactly. Especially if the administration was bully-friendly, which they often are. My daughter was so bullied at her middle school that we ended up having to take her out and put her in online school because the administration didn’t give a shit. The one time we went so apoplectic that they were forced to act, they made the bullies apologize to her and her apologize to the bullies. Which, of course, made things worse.
One of my daughter’s best friends is still in that school and he is trans. Some girl was harassing him and being incredibly bigoted to him and he finally turned around and slapped her for it. Guess which one of them got suspended and which one wasn’t even finger-wagged at? Hint: it wasn’t the girl that got suspended.
Ok, I’m curious. I get that the suspension was wrong and all…but did the girl ever bother him again? I will stand by my belief that the way you stop a bully, is to punch a bully in the mouth. Bullys bully because they feel they can get away with bullying without consequence. Present them an immediate cause and effect consequence, and they stop.
I don’t have the answer to that, but daughter never told me and she’s doing some video chat thing with friends right now, so I don’t want to bug her about it. I hope that stopped it for good from at least that girl.
Or, ya know…because they were responsible in training a would-be political assasin. And that probably comes with legal responsibilities. Such as “Why are we putting guns into teenagers hands, and teaching them how to kill?”
What a nonsense decision, it should be appealed at the very least
Edit a lot has happened so let’s bring some context to this: Hilary Clinton was derided as unfit for presidency because she had a secure server in her private space for emails, some of which were classified.
Meanwhile, Trump literally had boxes of classified documents in a bathroom. Republicans are duplicitous, hypocritical and should not be expected to operate on good faith.
Or if they’re not, then they should show some objectivity and apply the same standards everywhere. What a bunch of clowns
Failing to tell the defense they had the bullets recovered on set is a freaking stupid move. Like it’s incomprehensible how a prosecutor of any amount of experience- or even an intern at the office in their first week- could make such an abysmally stupid mistake.
To put it another way: someone threw the case, intentionally.
I think you overestimate Baldwin's current star power. These days, he's a B-lister, at best. Aside from this trial, he hasn't really been relevant in pop culture for a while now.
He's still rich, for sure. But I doubt he's still rich enough to buy a judge, if he ever was to begin with.
You need enough money to have a team of lawyers grind through the evidence and find what’s been hidden.
Compare this to having a public defender with limited resources. They basically have to trust the DA’s office.
What’s depressing about this is the DA’s office is so used to getting away with this shady shit, that they can’t do their job properly even when they know they’re under a higher level of scrutiny. Think of all the average Joes that have been fucked over by these guys.
Rich persons justice isn’t really about bribing your way out of things. It’s about having enough resources that you can force the system to behave, for you, in the way that it’s meant to.
This is instead of the usual process that just steamrolls over every poor bastard that ends up in court.
The Baldwins are extremely well connected. One of them is married to Justin Bieber. Who just got 10mil for performing at that 350mil Indian wedding. Alec is also a movie producer, which you cannot do if you have no money.
What if that judge’s daughter is a huge Justin Bieber fan? Or wants front row tickets to a fashion show or backstage Coachella passes? Or attend a movie premiere? That’s all within his scope
Or, it really was a politically motivated trial and the prosecution was willing to cover up exculpatory evidence in order to manipulate the justice system. Either way, its damning.
I fail to see how the cartridges can possibly be exculpatory.
It doesn’t matter how they got in the gun, or if these were from a case on set. He doesn’t contest that that it went off while he was holding it. Only that it’s not his fault.
Depends on why they failed and if you should have maintained your car better.
It’s usually not all that mysterious. Brakes don’t just randomly fail for no reason.
Let’s say they failed because of poor maintenance. Then yes.
Let’s say they failed because there was a defect in the brake line that caused it to rupture in the high temperatures of summer. Then no.
Baldwin failed a duty of care to ensure the weapon was cleared and in fact safe. He then failed a duty of care when handling that weapon in an extremely unsafe manner.
To go with the analogy, he knew his brakes were failing and drove anyway.
Then your analogy sucks. This wasn’t a random failure.
As I said in the reply: Baldwin knew- or should have known- that he was handling the firearm unsafely, and that he shouldn’t handle it in an unsafe manner,
Baldwin had a duty of care to know. He didn’t know. And now someone is dead. Had he taken the 30 seconds to clear the firearm, “oh there’s something chambered. armorer identify these!” (Or taking one out and checking himself, cuz it’s that kind of production, I guess….”hey this doesn’t rattle!”)… Alina would probably be alive today.
While HGR does have blame as the armorer who allowed abysmally bad safety practices; she’s not alone in that blame.
And the other guy who pled out. Him too.
The only way they could get out of it is if the prop cartridges were so realistic that you can’t tell them apart. At all. And for obvious reasons no prop company will ever produce such cartridges.
According to the affidavit, Halls said he did not check all cylinder chambers, but he recalled seeing three rounds in the cylinder at the time. (After the shooting, Halls said in the affidavit, Gutierrez-Reed retrieved the weapon and opened it, and Halls said that he saw four rounds which were plainly blanks, and one which could have been the remaining shell of a discharged live round.)[44] In the warrant, it is further stated that Halls announced the term “cold gun”, meaning that it did not contain live rounds.[42] Halls’s lawyer, Lisa Torraco, later sought to assert that he did not take the gun off the cart and hand it to Baldwin as reported, but when pressed by a reporter to be clear, she refused to repeat that assertion.[45]
It’s Wikipedia, but it matches what I’ve read elsewhere. He was told he had a cold gun. There is a division of responsibility and what’s described doesn’t match your assertion.
Go read the freaking law. It’s pretty self explanatory. Show me where it says people are allowed to act unsafely because somebody else told them it was okay. I’ll wait.
Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice.
(snip. this section is about voluntary manslaughter)
B. Involuntary manslaughter consists of manslaughter committed in the commission of an unlawful act not amounting to felony, or in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death in an unlawful manner or without due caution and circumspection.
Whoever commits involuntary manslaughter is guilty of a fourth degree felony.
Seriously Already linked it in the comments. Or you could just look up ‘new mexico manslaughter’ on google.
The movie industry has a Standard of Operations where an expert ensures safety and provides better protection than individual actors can. We cannot expect them to police the props and I sure as hell don’t want them deciding if it’s a blank or not.
He followed that process.
Now the legal system has spoken and the prosecution made such a mess of it a proper trial cannot happen.
You can state your convictions all you want. Good faith would include “allegedly.” You’re full of certanties and cast judgement like it’s your job. At him. At me. At others.
Have your certainty. Maybe that will keep you warm at night.
My link was posted on this thread and speaks directly to the events of that day. It’s easier to find than your implication that if I want a citation I need to read all the next under the OP.
I’m on vacation with family. I’m not spending hours on you. You’re just not worth it. You can feel free to read that last sentence a couple times, but I want to tell you the tone: these are events in New Mexico. We weren’t on set. There are far more important things than if some person on the internet thinks I should spend time finding out what I already know. People on the internet aren’t worth the judgement and vitriol you spew.
When you’ve re-proceszed my link, because it addresses your post (I’d think) and shows they my original metaphor works… Then we can consider contuing.
Or you can consider me not worth your time. And I’d support that. I’m just some dude on the internet. And it’s just some actor who will never get a real trial. And it’s not worth all the feels you’re putting out there…
You’d have gotten further with me by talking about how poorly he handled the situation that lead to this. Instead you’re back to checking the brakeline every time you drive.
First off there was no designated armorer (HGR’s contract expired.)
Secondly, according to that process, the armorer is supposed to be checking it in front of him, handing it directly to him, and watching him and the firearm to ensure safety.
That did not happen. We know that didn’t happen because if it did, nobody would be dead.
Further, as the person holding the weapon, it’s his final responsibility to handle it safely. If an expert tells him “this is safe,” and it’s obviously not safe… then it’s on him.
Pointing weapons at people and pulling the trigger; without at least checking its loading is unsafe, and Baldwin did not do that. He didn’t even see someone else that.
When the consequence of not being anal about something is death, you’re expected to be anal. The consequences of not following gun safety is death. And this is why.
See… Now you’re making more sense but you’re wavering between points about when he got gun and the on set practices generally.
No, they aren’t required to see the armorer load it, although that sounds like a best practice. Sounds like standard is the AD gets it from the armorer and keeps direct control until handing it to the actor is also accepted practice and allegedly used as process on set.
A expired contract isn’t ideal and, again, I agree it’s not a good look. Did she lose her skill when the contract elapsed? Is this pedantey or how does this matter? After much searching I keep seeing that she was the head armorer. None of the articles I’ve reviewed bring that up, so it reads as a possibly interesting fact that all researched people decided wasn’t germane.
I agree that a person fully trained in gun handling would go beyond the film industry’s general practices. I’d be exceptionally cautious and I’ve only fired guns a handful of times in my life. No sweeps, no bullets and act as if it’s always loaded. Never point at something you aren’t willing to obliterate.
I hope you’re checking your brake lines. Cars kill people. They see daily use and people have assimilated that risk and tend to think so little of it we see brake checkers and other offensive acts. We’d do well to always check our brake lines. The consequences of brake failures are very often severe, if not death.
I am NOT saying he’s blameless. I’m not saying HGR is. I’m saying there’s a standard to when a responsible person says that someone did x. It’s typically criminal conviction. You have no such concerns. As such, it is opinion by accepted convention.
Separately, what you described is not supported by my various searches where I attempt to find the very thing you assert. In that light, I’d say I’m softening my original SOP assertion. They have practices, but it sounds like the practices vary by armorer, state or set. They’ve been effective for quite a while, but very obviously multiple mistakes were made on the set of Rust.
To continue my analogy: We should all check our brake lines. The consequences of failed brake lines is death (I know this isn’t true, but same applies to guns - it depends on situation) . And this is why if you turn someone into pink mist, it’s your fault. You need to double check your mechanic’s actions after every service.
Or do you just kinda trust them with your life, the lives of loved ones and the lives of others in/near the roads you drive? I do.
Cars kill people. Remember, that’s where you planted a flag. They are nothing alike. Right?
And now you want to litigate, with non-lawyer me, a trial that will never happen and would need a new round of investigation in light of the new revelation. That investigation , possibly moot, so where are two nerds on the internet going to find the resources for that?
Again, have your moral certainty. I just wouldn’t act like it’s proven. It sounds like a dick move on a good day.
Not quite, you’re ignoring the role of the armorer on set in your metaphor.
If you just picked up your car from the mechanic after they were expected to check everything, including the brakes, and the brakes then fail causing you to crash and kill someone… Is it manslaughter? And if so, who is at fault?
You were driving the vehicle, but you would obviously expect the brakes to be in working order since they were supposedly checked immediately before you started driving. The driver would almost certainly not be charged in that case, but the mechanic on the other hand would clearly be negligent, directly leading to the death.
Manslaughter is about proving negligence or misconduct. The prosecution case was that Baldwin was at fault as he was negligent handling a gun with live ammunition.
Part of Baldwins defence was that he did not know the gun had a live round in it.
The new evidence was that the live ammo came from the props company, not the armourer, throwing doubt over whether the armourer or Baldwin knew there were live rounds on set or in the gun.
That’s a hugely important part of the defence case, and also makes it much hard to prove involuntary manslaughter - it would be negligent to fire a gun knowing there is a live round in it, but if you did not know there were live rounds then does that meet the same level of negligence?
Personally I thought the case against Baldwin seemed tenuous so I’m not surprised this new evidence ended the trial.
This does raise serious questions about the safety of the armourers conviction. She might still be negligent as its unclear how live ammo from the prop company got on set without her knowing but she has not been able to answer that as the evidence was suppressed and she was convicted on the assumption it was entirely her fault the live ammo was on set.
It raises even more serious questions about the behaviour and motivations of the new mexico prosecution team and investigators.
The problem with this statement is that prop/inert cartridges are labeled and identified as such in ways that are usually fairly obvious.
Like “loading” the cartridge with a steel ball bearing, and a used/fired primer cap (which has a divot from the hammer.) Thorough inspection would have identified them as inert.
While it’s remotely possible they were so well crafted as to be virtually identical, that kind of thing would end the props company. They are very careful to always make the marking conspicuous- as long as you know to look for it. (Another common option is a somewhat large hole in the side of the casing.)
And the indicators should have been gone over in a safety briefing so everyone knows. (And is trained in what to do on seeing a live round. “Hey! Live round! armorer!”)
In any case Baldwin had a duty of care to handle the firearm safely. Part of that includes knowing its state. He did not clear the fire arm, and did not know its state. It becomes self evident they were not inert cartridges but rather live rounds given that we’re talking about Alina being shot.
This is what conspiracy theories are supposed be. Absurd insanity. Not “vaccines are bad for you” or “a secret agent with Q clearance wants patriots to overthrow democracy”.
I so wish it would have been true. I didn’t mind Jar Jar as much as others, I’m old (original trilogy old) and think he was… adequate for comic relief and for the kids, but him being a bumbling Sith would be just perfect. I should look for some fan fic of this
It didn’t really make sense to me that he would be right there when the Jedi landed. The Trade Federation has multiple landing locations, which we saw in the movie, how did Darth Jar Jar know which one had the two Jedi stowed away on? Also how did he know that they escaped or would escape? Plus why didn’t he just kill them on route to meeting Anakin?
It’s vicious and anti-scientific, but it’s not in the same level of obviously untrue statement as good conspiracy theories. Things that were claimed to be safe turning out to not be safe is something that actually happens. They’re just lying that it’s true of vaccines.
My favorite conspiracy theory is that Kelly Johnson was read into alien tech at area 51/roswell and he was allowed to reverse engineer it. That’s why he got government funding directly to him, and how he developed the sr71 blackbird so fucking quick
Case in point: A reality TV show called Big Brother, named after the nebulous, terrifying, all-powerful overseer in George Orwell's 1984, was created specifically to rob the name of its power.
Its usually not the creators that do the obfuscation, its the people with money picking and choosing the “winners” of Hollywood. One of those factors is name
I stood near him on “conventions” a few times with some years in between and he is such a nasty person both while making phone calls and in the way he treats others/his staff.
Comes over as someone who can’t find any joy in the small things in his life and p*sses on everyone else because of it.
More like there being chemicals that actually fucked up frogs’ genitals but we only ever heard about it through the lens of Alex Jones and “turning the freaking frogs gay [sic]” youtu.be/i5uSbp0YDhc
Alex was just yelling about headlines he doesn’t understand, groundwater runoff affecting water tables is serious news covered a lot. It’s not fun so doesn’t make it to memes.
Alex supports Trump who cut a third of the EPA budget, Biden strengthened the EPA significantly. Things that actually matter get reported on but receive very few clicks, at some point we have to accept we’re responsible and make an effort to change.
Oh, please don’t mistake me as believing Alex Jones is some sort of bastion of truth. While I find it interesting there is truth behind the meme, it’s more upsetting that the manner in which people hear it is still coming from a place of misinformation and bigotry. (Bigotry as in having different genitals doesn’t make you homosexual, yet the claim is that it “turns frogs gay.” Which is why I tossed the sic tag on the quote.)
I was gonna conspire, the first step would be to trivialize the idea in the first place.
Not me. That sounds like way too much work. Spending a century or so running skeptic magazines/podcast/book publishers/blogs/whatyou just so i cam sneak my little thing in.
That’s why they’re running the disclaimers now - the trial hasn’t been held yet and they’re bracing themselves for impact.
Unlike Fox News, who could settle with Dominion for $787M and carry on as usual, Newsmax’s pockets don’t run nearly as deep. If the court rules against them in September, they’ll most likely be utterly screwed.
this will go away the instant one of these “verify” sites gets hacked and some GOP senator’s daily visit to 8guysblowing9guys.com gets leaked to the world
That poor ninth guy doesn’t have a guy to blow him. That’s just poor planning really. It would make more sense to have nine blowers, with a guy doubling up on rotation.
Firstly, because seeking public office should not incur a complete loss of privacy.
Disagree entirely. Once you are a public figure, you no longer have a right to privacy. And people have a right to know if you’re going to Nazi websites.
Secondly, because what we’d see would likely be mortifying.
The second half was a joke about fetishes. Some could seem bizarre to others while ultimately benign. That it didn’t land with you is informative.
Your response, in general, is troubling in its shortsightedness. Stripping away all privacy as a requirement for office is not the filter you want it to be. Recent history illustrates that certain movements are unfazed by repulsive behavior as long as they believe a candidate will get them what they want. With that in mind, who would stand to be damaged most by your proposed requirement: the candidate who visited Nazi websites or the one whose browser history includes research on how to help someone legally obtain an abortion?
Taking it further, who do you suppose would be most likely to use such information to self-cannibalize, the already barely cohesive left or the increasingly monolithic right? Consider that the post-9/11 reality we live in has seen both a constant erosion of personal privacy and a steady shift towards fascism, and ask yourself if you can honestly say that the two are unrelated. In this scenario, who truly benefits from stripping away privacy rights from those seeking office?
You suggest a law that would almost certainly be weaponized, which I do believe is your intent, but the most likely targets aren’t who you seem to think they would be.
Please point out to me where I said such, or where I even implied it. You can’t, because I didn’t, but I would love to know which part you find appropriate to project such nonsense onto.
After you move past your poor attempt at bad-faith mischaracterization, assuming you’re capable and willing to do so, re-read what I actually did say and see if you can wrap your head around the idea of unforseen consequences.
Open your eyes; we have people with openly fascist leanings and blatant bigots in office right now. We know about them. They are not operating in secrecy. They are campaigning on platforms of intolerance and hate. Regardless of what flavor of horrible they are, be it KKK or Nazi or MAGA or whatever else, their actions out them more clearly than any browser history ever could. What you propose doesn’t hinder their pursuit of their goals. Legislation like this would make those goals more easily attainable.
You’re implying that you believe I’ve resorted to “personal attacks” while simultaneously ignoring the very clear point I am making.
Explain how browser history is the key to resolving the issue. Explain how legislation that could, and therefore would, be used against progressivism is a solution. Explain how public dissection of candidates has ever helped anyone other than the right.
I’ll answer your question with others: how many candidates campaigning on progressive platforms with ties to such organizations and societies do you believe exist? How many secret Nazis are out there running on an agenda with equality as a core tenant? How many KKK sleeper agents do you think there are who are seeking office under the pretense of being left-leaning? These people out themselves, they have little interest in subterfuge during the best of times. We are not in the best of times.
We are operating in a day where the worst among us are far from hidden, yet you’re seeking to create a bogeyman even while our monsters parade around in broad daylight. The onus lies with you to justify what you’ve proposed. So far, you have not. Unless you have anything to say that doesn’t default back to trying to discover that which is already exposed, I believe it’s safe to say that this discussion has run its course.
I’m sure Google knows more than the NSA about the average person. I actually hope they do, too, because those tax dollars could be used more efficiently
I’d like to think the 9th wheel just wanders around the group poking dudes in the face with his dick and in his most creeper voice saying stuff like:
Uhhhhhnnnnn…yeah…you like that don’t you…nnnnnnnnn…
And everyone else is really put off by it, and like the whole blow flow gets out of whack, dudes going soft left and right…
Hmmm…I think my imagination got away from me a bit there…
Honestly kinda wish they’d have succeeded. We’d be down one monster at the hands of another; and the justice system would have handled the situation with MUCH less legal circus and kid gloves. The overall response to J6 has been a joke, and this would have forced us to take it seriously.
Not sure if Pence dying would have made a difference there actually. There was already an insurrection, so if martial law is what he was after, he could have just used that as an excuse regardless of how successful the insurrectionists were.
I like to think that ‘we the people’ wouldn’t tolerate a Trump instigating an insurrection and then calling for martial law on the basis of that same insurrection; but it certainly wouldn’t be the first time I’d have been disappointed at our collective lack of a spine.
The Vice President doesn’t certify the vote count, the Senate does. The VP usually presides over the counting because the VP is the head of the Senate but if the office of the VP is vacant or the VP chooses not to preside over the vote count then the president pro tempore or the Senate leader elected under SR1 is the presiding officer.
Yeah, and without Pence, it would’ve been Lindsay Graham acting as president pro tempare, and he would have gone along with the fake elector scheme as pretext to refuse to acknowledge electors from states Biden won, leaving him with less than 270 electors. Election stalemates, it goes to Congress in a one-vote-per-state contest, and Trump wins. That was the entire plan behind the coup–find a pretext to deny Biden 270 electors to throw it to the backup mechanism where Republicans outnumber Democrats.
I’m glad they failed but at least I don’t have to listen to the corporate media wax poetic about how the United States is a beacon of democracy because the president is willing to peacefully transition to the next or whatever
How even? Are the cops supposed to search the ground first? Like seriously, regardless of the circumstances leading to the arrest, how to prevent that?
What a stupid fucking take. She said there were fire ants on her face. In that instance you move her. I’m not a cop, and I know this, and wouldn’t do this to someone, because I’m not a fucking moron.
I swear to god you guys who stick up for the cops don’t even think for five seconds before hungrily jamming pig cock down your throats for all to see.
You’re assuming that this was an accident and that he didn’t do it on purpose (he absolutely did). Humoring this theory though, let’s consider your question:
**Q: **Should a cop survey his surroundings, including the ground, before restraining someone?
**A: **Yes, of course, you would be a fucking idiot not to. Furthermore, forcing a person into some sort of hazard and injuring them, even unintentionally, is a problem to be avoided.
How to prevent that?
Your idea seems to be to do nothing at all so I’ll start by saying that’s fucking stupid.
Some might say to abolish law enforcement, but honestly, with compassionate police training emphasizing de-escalation, harm reduction, and civil service, we might actually have an ethical system someday. Also by firing cops on the first offense for use of excess force and blacklisting them from law enforcement for years requiring re-certification to ever become a cop again. And abolishing police unions and narrowing legal immunity for on-duty cops so that they don’t get away with maiming and killing people. And not funneling all of the excesses of the U.S. Military Industrial Complex into the hands of every suburban police department so that they can act as a standing army in our turnkey dictatorship.
Since you are the only person that actually replies: Has nothing to do with the case at hand, as I said (or the person I reply to) generally speaking. Since thinking abstract is hard, here an example: There was an armed robbery, they got the person cornered, one officer gets ready to charge him in order to disarm. This works. Person now on the ground. Face is wherever it happened to land. How to avoid that? Is that possible?
Did you even read the article? She accidentally drove the wrong way in a bus lane. Her son was still in the car. The police officer freaked out and instead of calmly talking to her, they called backup and the officer who came freaked out even worse and slammed her to the ground on an ant hill and then ignored her saying that ants were boring her face. You don’t see any point where this could have been avoided?
Yes, cops are supposed to check the ground they are shoving someone’s face into to prevent injury to that person. Maybe not shove any nonviolent faces into the ground at all? But that is too much to ask, I guess.
If you take someone into your custody via an arrest, you are then responsible for their wellbeing. This is common sense.
Imagine if someone is in the middle of a shallow river getting arrested. Would it be okay to hold their head underwater while you are restraining them? Of course not.
The officer is responsible for making sure that the suspect is not put into harms way during the course of having them in their custody. If they fail that very basic expectation, they should not be in law enforcement period.
Kindly go put your face on a fire ant nest, and then come back and tell us how the cop shouldn’t have moved her once she yelled about the fire ants.
The nests can sometimes be hard to spot, so I’m not voting one way or another on that. But basic human decency says, if you accidentally put someone on a fire ant nest, you move them asap once you notice.
Body worn cameras stop a lot of cop abuse (and also false accusations of abuse) since in the aftermath of some incident the footage often speaks for itself. As is the case here.
We live in a 2-Party system. Let me guess: You already vote, donate, and volunteer to abolish it, and are leading a grassroots effort for voting reform… Right!?
I don’t know, man. I used to vote nothing but third party, yet here we are. So I kinda feel like the third party voters are the ones who keep doing the same thing and expecting different outcomes. Ross Perot was a character, though. But of course he still lost anyway and my vote did fuck all. Until Fascism is back out of fashion, I’m going to vote straight ticket dem. Eliminate the existential threat and then we can worry about the little stuff.
Genocide, Climate catastrophe, Internment Camps at the Border, Police and state racism… All the little stuff.
Instead of holding the Dems accountable and offering them to win you back by actually adressing issues, you give them a free pass not to adress any issue you care about. They care about losing power. They don’t care about what you want. Threatening to take away their power is the only thing that makes them listen to you.
Putting Trump in charge doesn’t hold Democrats accountable. It would move them further to the right, which is the exact opposite of you want. They don’t care about disinterested non-voters, they only care about courting those that do show up to vote.
Change needs to come from within. Organize within the DNC. Primary their candidates. That’s how you get people like AOC elected. Once the primaries are over, there’s no shot at moving them further left.
There is still 5 months until the election. 5 months in which the current DNC leaders can be pressured to change course.
Don’t buy their bullshit that you have no power over them. I fully agree with you to organize though. Make your voices heard with them, but tell them fair and square that there is no vote for genocide supporters.
There’s no incentive for them to change course now.
If people say: “Stop the genocide, or we will not vote you” there is plenty of incentive to change course now. But people arguing the opposite, claiming it is pointless and that the people have no power are diminishing the power of the people. This is why the DNC is pushing this narrative so heavily. They want you to be demotivated and feeling powerless. It is the same strategy like with the oil companies and climate change.
In a 2 party FPTP system, the people don’t have that power. That’s the point. The DNC can just shrug it off and say “okay, then Trump wins, and that’s even worse”. The DNC can survive a Trump term. Gaza may not.
As a gay man, let me make it clear: letting non-Democrats get into power does not do anything to hurt the politicians and does everything to empower those who would have me and people like me in the LGBTQ+ community dead. A vote that puts Trump in power - whether directly or indirectly - is a vote for the continued genocide of American minorities.
letting non-Democrats get into power does not do anything to hurt the politicians
Are the Democrats not politicians then? Are they not seeking power then? Also what makes you believe that now they support a genocide against brown people and in four years they wouldn’t support killing LGBT+ ?
I can relate. I voted for Nader when Bush stole the election in 2000. I spent that entire term wondering how much better Gore would’ve handled 9/11 response and retaliation. It was the last time I let my vote go uncounted.
Being registered as Independent or Green Party is practically disenfranchisement. Now I periodically change my registration from Democrat to Republican, depending on which primaries I’m more interested in participating in.
A two party system is the natural result of the American voting system. A first last the post voting system will always eventually lead to a two party system. If you want to avoid that eventuality, you need to use a different voting system.
You only live in 2 party system because you keep screaming that you live in a 2 party system.
No, we have a 2 party system because the existing law is inherently biased against 3rd parties thanks to our use of the electoral college/FPTP, lobbying, and lack of election finance regulation/enforcement.
Engels said, in a letter to Marx, the US “[c]onstitution…which makes it appear as though every vote were lost that is cast for a candidate not put up by one of the two governing parties.” (Engels to Frederick Adolph Sorge, December 2, 1893, in Marx and Engels on the United States (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1979), p. 333.)
We need to work to change things, but this is not new, and you are not smart for thinking that you have moved past it. Sure, if everyone agreed to vote for a single third party, it could happen. That’s not going to happen though, at least for the president. Even people voting third party can’t really agree on which one, diluting votes even further. Third party may work for some local elections, but not the president. Not yet at least.
From the table on Wikipedia, the record by percentage of EC votes is 24% (72/303) in 1860. By a former VP, not a Jill Stein.
Splitting the vote in PA that year made Lincoln’s win a certainty. Nice that a spoiler candidate worked against the pro-slavery regressives of the era.
Their party split when the national convention didn’t agree they’d abide by the SCOTUS ruling on States’ Rights, LOL, absolute shitheads. And then they also did an insurrection.
Sure, if everyone agreed to vote for a single third party, it could happen. That’s not going to happen though
And by repeating this mantra you protect the system and the systems parties against change. From a mass psychological point this is brilliant and the same play that the Sovjet Union and other regimes played and play. Break peoples spirit so they defend their own opression as they cannot envision anything outside of it.
It is boring correcting, over and over, things which redcaps have deliberately distorted.
“Why did Biden obey the law with money that was already allocated to the border wall prior to his administration? Both sides.”
“Why did Obama only release like 200 Gitmo prisoners instead of all? Shouldn’t he have put the remaining 50 directly into US cities so he could close it all the way? Both sides.”
The government should never be allowed to put its own citizens to death. The government is not infallible. The government has put innocent people to death.
Boomer humor. Government did something imperfect or not to MY personal standards therefore the whole thing is shit. Hahahahhahahahahaha aren’t I funny?
Subjecting human beings to inhuman torture by consistently failing to kill them is so far below anybody’s standards for a death sentence that the mere action itself should be illegal.
If they’re unable to get a sealed record at trial, they will be required to disclose all charges leading to conviction on any employment or housing application they complete. It’s horribly prejudicial of our system to allow the assumption that those with convictions are unworthy of employment or housing.
System working as intended. All of this was intended to keep minorities (most black ppl) in a perpetual state of incarceration. Only now the groups deemed undesirable have expanded. We could’ve fixed it decades ago but the majority of this country (white ppl) were fine with it because it didn’t affect them.
Bernie Sanders was arrested at protests in his youth, iirc. If there is any glimmer of hope in this shit storm, maybe in forty years a few of these students will be leading s political movement together as senators and representatives.
It’s restrictive to working in the private sector and renting an apartment. There is no disqualification for criminal background for a member of government. Trump can be elected if he’s convicted of any or all of the charges he’s facing. He’d just be barred from voting in the election.
Actually no. The supreme court’s decision explicitly said that clause was not self executing, meaning even someone convicted of treason cannot be disqualified without an act of Congress. It was one of the dumber decisions to come out of the court and that’s saying something.
I’m willing to throw some shade at the Dems for not forcing a floor vote here, put people on record refusing the nominee. It’s obvious though his first pick wasn’t getting the 60 needed though to pass, so it’d be for show at best.
That’s not how it works. The FCC is on a completely different cycle and you can only appoint new people when old people expire out. It’s supposed to keep politics out. Impeachment is a possibility but that’s the only remedy.
“Sohn ultimately faced senators across three confirmation hearings since Biden first tapped her for the post. Her nomination, which awaited a committee vote in 2023, never received floor consideration.”
I’m referring to the notion of the first nomination being held in committee for almost 2 years rather than forcing cloture and having the full vote. It would have presumably gone nowhere, but at least it’s an affirmative action.
That faulty line of thinking (shitting on everything) is the same line of thinking that “lets imperfect get in the way of good.”
“Oh, this action was late. Bad!”
“Oh, this action only solves part of the problem. Stop trying! Bad!”
“Oh, the rich will just use a loophole to get around this! Bad!”
If repubs can convince critics that doing nothing is better than doing something, repubs win. A seemingly very effective exploitation of the narcissism of the online critic.
People scoff when you mention these sentiments have been proven to be pushed by foreign state agencies to create voter apathy too.
Shit look how much people espouse ‘green washing’ on Lemmy then pretend like they’re the one true enlightened ones. Mean they’re stuck doomscrolling on an even less regulated platform than Facebook or Reddit pretending like converted efforts of state propaganda isn’t pushed here.
Like guys, anarchist and communist viewpoints are just fine when you aren’t pushing parroted fascist rhetoric. Few people have issues with you being further left than American progressives. They’re the Lemmy equivalent of vegan jokes now lol.
It’s a waste of time criticizing organizations that are beyond being reformed like the Republican party is. The Democratic party can and must do better and should hear about their screwups, the Republican party just needs to be rendered irrelevant entirely and doesn’t need to see it coming.
If this was the '90s or '00s or early '10s, I’d agree with you. There were a lot of conservative Democrats in congress that were taking up potentially liberal seats and some Democrats (Clinton) pushed conservative initiatives even further in order to win.
Now, I constantly see cynical Democrats blaming everything on Democrats, even if it’s out of their control. Blame Republicans when Republicans are to blame so we can beat them. Blaming Democrats is often counterproductive.
Example, post. This is good. Let’s continue to do good.
The reason the right has been kicking liberal asses lately is their unity. That unity was mostly due to the torrent of dark money from billionaire foundations like the Koch network pushing an agenda, but none the less they moved this country so far right it will take decades to change things. The left needs to learn to stop attacking the few people we still have in power so hard and look at the bigger picture. You will never get progressive change quickly, it takes a long coordinated movement. It’s an election year and we know our options are Biden against the anti-thesis of progressivism. Lets rally now and push Biden for change after the election when we have ensured we elected someone who could actually listen.
Imo, it made sense to attack Democrats 15 years ago who weren’t representing their constituents (more recently, Sinema comes to mind). But we’re past that. Now it’s time to back our people, get more of them in office, push progressive ideals to the public, and get things done.
For example, saying Democrats don’t do enough to protect abortion access is counterproductive. You have to support more liberals so they have the power to make change.
Same with net neutrality. Saying it took them too long doesn’t help. They got it done. Celebrate it.
They’re not being criticized for doing the right thing. They’re being criticized for the negative aspect. Many others have answered it, but the way you’re framing this is kinda strange.
You’d equally criticize anyone else that you thought had the power to save a drowning man but sat there watching for a while before finally saving him.
Now imagine their replacement actively wants to drown people and for some reason there are people who think both sides are reasonable choices and others are backing the pro-drowning guy.
I’ll take the guy who took his time. And yeah, I’m going to call out the critics.
Now imagine their replacement actively wants to drown people and for some reason there are people who think both sides are reasonable choices
Nobody here is saying that. Do you really think the person who’s wondering why it took this long is sitting there saying the Republicans made a reasonable choice to remove net neutrality? Really?
others are backing the pro-drowning guy.
Who cares? They’re irrelevant to this. We already disagree with them. We’re likely never going to agree with them. They’re not criticizing how long it took to reverse Net Neutrality. They’re mad that it was reimplemented at all.
I’ll take the guy who took his time.
What? Who isn’t? Again, the action of reimplementing Net Neutrality isn’t being criticized. Them taking this long is what’s being criticized. Or do I need to ask you to give evidence of left leaning people complaining that Net Neutrality was reimplemented?
You’re advocating for just taking whatever you get as long there’s someone worse. With that same logic, the guy could wait and watch the drowning guy get bitten by something in the water and get injured trying to save himself and then save him. You’d still accept that no problem huh? You’re saying that there’s no reason to improve, because at least you’re better than the other guy.
Furthermore, everyone I’ve seen so far has accepted the reason for it taking this long. So again, the way you’re framing this is strange.
Fascinating how there’s no logical reason for that to happen, but carry on. Doesn’t look like you ever cared to actually make a reasonable case for yourself.
You just misrepresented what I said and ignored my point. YOU never made a reasonable case. You keep putting Dems down, don’t be surprised when fascists win.
Trump is going to win unless people start supporting Biden. Same with congress. Celebrate the wins or the centrists are going to give control to the fascists.
You just misrepresented what I said and ignored my point.
Quote it then. You’ve done literally nothing to actually show where or how I’ve done that.
YOU never made a reasonable case.
My point was always: you can criticize a negative aspect of something without it being a criticism of the entire thing. That still holds true.
Now you’re trying to make this about the Democrats as a whole. You’re really not able to think about things in parts huh? I can criticize something taking far too long(which, if you saw my response to another comment, removes pretty much all actual criticism from this specific case) and still accept that they did something good. Merely asking why it took this long isn’t, by any means, saying that them doing the thing was wrong. I’ve said this multiple times already.
Trump is going to win unless people start supporting Biden.
Let me know when left leaning persons have started voting, in significant numbers, for Biden merely because they have criticisms for Biden. That’s actually asinine. Actually going along with that same logic, do you think Republicans and centrists magically start voting for Democrats if any criticism is levied from their side?
Celebrate the wins or the centrists are going to give control to the fascists
Nah, I’m not stupid. I’m not going to ignore every negative thing that “my side” does just because you think it means the other side will lose. As I said before that’s literally giving leeway for them to do absolutely anything they want, as long as they’re at least marginally better than Republicans. I’ve gladly accepted that Net Neutrality is back, but I’m not going to realize it’s only back now after years, and ignore it without good reason. At this point, we’re not even arguing over the actual Net Neutrality case anymore.
Soooo, where’s the quote my guy? Instead of actually responding with something of worth, you make a piss poor insult that doesn’t even make sense. I’m not even sure what part of my comment that’s supposed to be in response to, because again, I’m not stupid. Why would any kind of propaganda work on me?
Nevertheless, seeing as you really don’t have anything of substance to add, I guess we’re done here.
You don’t know what sealionong is. 1. It has to be repetitive or be multiple requests 2. It has to be in spite of requests that were previously fulfilled. It’s been one request. You said I misrepresented you. So quote where I did. It would literally be you scrolling up and copy/pasting it. It’s one simple request. Hell, my comments have been far longer than yours. If anyone’s a troll here, it’s you. You’ve yet to make a substantial point.
And I might as well address your other comment in this one too.
The analogy was never about Democrats; it was about being able to criticize anyone while still accepting that they did a good thing overall. You’re the dumb one that tried to jump all over the place.
I’m just jumping in to call out your “oh we would never do such a horrible thing as not vote” bullshit.
You mean the thing that you brought up? Absolutely nobody said anything about not voting. If this is a troll, at least do something that isn’t this blatantly dumb. C’mon, at least make a comment that’ll demand more than a quick 2-minute response from me. I clearly have the free time. I miss the days when trolls were at left somewhat intelligent. It’s also an apt analogy for the situation it was actually getting used for. The other commenter was able to interact with it perfectly.
But you know what, I said I was done before and now I’m gonna stand by it unless you can actually back up the stupid claims you’re making. Quote where I misrepresented you or I guess we really are done.
EDIT: Holy hell! I only now noticed that I’m responding to two different users tag teaming in and out. No way in hell someone’s that dumb to not just point out that it’s someone else. Dude really said sealioning.
My point was always: you can criticize a negative aspect of something without it being a criticism of the entire thing. That still holds true.
Sure, it’s possible, but no one on lemmy is actually doing that and there’s no way anyone is blind enough to not know that.
Behind every “criticism” of Democrats is a fucking Republican. This close to an election? On Lemmy? It’s propaganda. Fuck that. Democrats did a good thing. Stop there.
You kept insulting people who helped drowning victims, now no one wants to save drowning people, or is scared to do so. So the pro- drowning people faction has won.
Insulting? You’re insulted by any kind of criticism huh? Yeah, makes sense. And that’s not in any way how this works. That’s not at all analogous to what we’re talking about anymore.
Saving a drowning man doesn’t have people trying stand between you and the drowning man. Just because a new president comes to power doesn’t mean he just gets to change things from previous administrations on a whim. Those powers that helped see it pass don’t just disappear. Government is fights and compromises and those take time. You deal with the other party and special interests paying whoever they can to move forward or obstruct anything to their advantage. Right or wrong it’s reality of government. Changes in government rarely are bi-partisan enough to pass quickly.
You and I don’t disagree here. The guy I replied to is arguing that we shouldn’t really even be asking why it took this long, because we eventually got it. The act of questioning why it took this long shouldn’t immediately get a response of “at least it’s reversed now, stop complaining”. The guy saving the drowning man could very well have very valid reasons as to why he’s waiting, that we don’t know. But if we don’t know them, we kinda have to ask don’t we?
I’m yet to see anyone get the reason for it taking this long and not accept it. It’s been ~6 months since they got back the FCC. The complaint isn’t over a measly 6 months. That’s an acceptable amount of time really. The first assumption is usually that they’ve had the ability to reverse it much closer to when Biden took office. Waiting until near to the end of a 4 year term is a really long time.
No, the system was the problem, not the people. Criticizing the people is ineffective at best, counterproductive at worst. It’s just adding negativity cause someone wants to complain…
Well the door will jam if you kick it. Then you’re trapped in the damn room. Sometimes you don’t need to apply pressure because the door wants to open. You just need to help it by finding a door knob. And sometimes you can turn the wall into a door.
I emailed the Ars Technica article to my Trump voting mother on jackass what’s his face when Trump appointed him and accused her of harming the internet. We have a no-politics rule now because of how angry I grew over time with that orange fuck. It was my idea. Saved our relationship.
I really don’t understand why streaming business are so surprised. They are providing television for rent and users are renting it plain and simple.They seem to think they are entitled to lengthy subscriptions from users when in reality they aren’t providing a service that’s even stable or worth it.
they thought star trek would carry it.... when that didn't work, they shopped some of those titles around to play elsewhere and don't even have their entire flagship franchise available anymore.
My wife wanted to watch the Grammys and when we saw it was on Paramount Plus we got it for 1 day. Afterwards I bought a 25 dollar over the air antennae so we can watch live CBS on the local affiliate for the once per year when we want to watch live TV. Isn't worth it pretty much ever
Paramount+ ate the children’s entertainment app Noggin, which was primarily a streaming media and games app for the Nickelodeon crowd. It was commercial free, highly curated, and generally an exciting thing for the kids to open up and use to discover stuff like STEM games that were actually fun. Enshittification merged Noggin into Paramount, removed the recommendation algorithm geared towards kids, and shut down the Noggin app. Now Paramount is the only option and it’s horrible.
Agreed. I have that shit for free because of where I work and have yet to watch a single thing on it. I mean there’s things I would’ve watched ideally, but my tastes have changed where I don’t want to revisit some things. Ah yes, they have the fucking Golf Masters on there. Paramount Plus’ selection looks like the home of all of those mundane shows you’d commonly find on cable TV. The ones you skip a lot of the time. They’re all here in one package that almost nobody wants unless they want to tap into nostalgia for some of the other ones, like the Nick shows.
Originally we went to get to watch RuPaul's Drag Race but it doesn't have the current season even though its the main attraction. Then when I saw that some Star Trek wasn't on it we canceled within a week.
Are you outside the US? I thought Netflix got all the Trek series everywhere outside of the US, but this was back when Discovery was first coming out so my info may be out of date. I just download the stuff to avoid jumping through these hoops and avoid ads.
The Netflix model was only ever really sustainable as long as there was only one or two providers. As long as there was only Netflix people were quite happy to just stay with the subscription because all of the content was on one convenient platform.
If I want to watch popular shows and how I have to subscribe to five or six services. Why would I do that if they are all still going to be there in a couple of months.
They usually keep new shows at least for a year. And I suppose after that there’s no possible way of watching that content ever again, it’s lost into oblivion and certainly not available to download from a large number of locations.
The Netflix model was only ever really sustainable as long as there was only one or two providers
The netflix model of streaming for cash was sustainable. The practice of gouging to where people will churn, that’s more widespread and an expected result.
You’re probably being theoretical rhetorical, but they’re definitely not surprised. Any actual confusion as to why an article like this can be cleared up when you consider the author isn’t really talking to us. Try reading it as if it’s a business brief, talking about us as a ‘problem’ that must be addressed. That ‘problem’ is we users are getting more value from the current model than was calculated by corporate.
Soon there will be another article (also addressing the room as if we’re not part of the discussion) detailing how corporate managed to “fix” it, and the revenue increases it brings. The other companies will follow suit to thunderous applause
news
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.