I’ve never been the biggest Chappelle fan, but years ago, before he started going down this path, I had basic respect for him as a comedian. Now he’s actually promoting punching down? And he didn’t feel like he was punching down enough with trans people, so he had to be an ableist as well as a transphobe?
And Netflix would not have put this on their site sight unseen, so they 100% knew that this was a celebration of attacking vulnerable people.
Christ, even when I was in high school I knew that the guy who pushed the kid in the wheelchair over onto their side was a shithead and so did almost everyone else. So basically Chapelle wants his fan base to be the little weasel kid who stands behind the bully with a grin on his face because someone else is getting it when it could have been them.
I wonder if anyone will come in here and defend him with some mumbo jumbo about free speech?
Netflix is a bunch of suits. In their perfect world they can cater different content to trans people and to transphobic people at the same time, in order to make maximum money.
And on top of that they know that outrage fuels views. They keep making inflammatory content that will outrage one side and get the other to spite-view it. Of course inflammatory content to left wingers tends to be bigotted and hateful, while inflammatory to right wingers tends to just be anything not overwhelmingly white, straight, and patriarchal.
Money literally rotts the brain. Study after study shows wealthy people become more sociopathic as they accumulate more wealth and power. We shouldn’t cap wealth just because it’s morally right, it also prevents those in power from becoming all consuming sociopaths.
and chris rock! i was just thinking how these 2 used to be very funny, if not somewhat irreverent... i get it. but now theyre both on this conservative soap box its so weird!
I haven’t heard about Rock. That’s disappointing. It’s a common thing with comedians these days to get upset if their comedy either goes to far or just isn’t funny and blame it on people being too sensitive. It feels like that’s been pushing some of them to the right even though that’s not really the issue they are being confronted with.
nothing quite as egregious as chappelle, but his recent special was completely class tone-deaf, and boring. ' i dont enjoy politically correct terminology', 'i am rich, entitled human', 'will smith sucks' were the main tones i remember from watching his last special.. that and thinking, 'when did chris rock get boring'?
For me, the dividing line when he became unfunny was when he started being in every Sandler movie. It was somewhere along the way that all of those comedians in those movies just lost it.
Carlin is Carlin. Everybody else only tries to approach him or has given up on the idea of doing it. The man had a 50+ year career with a consistent upwards trend. In 4 years we will be at the 20th anniversary of his death. And the man is still relevant and funny to this day.
Chappelle, Seinfeld, Allen, etc. All just hacks who got lucky. Would anyone even know who Seinfeld was without Larry David? That man is another gem for sure.
I can’t even watch or recommend others to watch half baked any more between Chappelle and Bruer.
A lot of transphobes, white-supremacists, and similar ideologues would support eugenics for disabled people so that isn’t a far off description. Whether comedians like him realize it or not, they are normalizing social darwinism essentially.
I read a view that not punching down is offensive and not right.
See it’s based on everyone being equal and there is nothing wrong with being disabled (the person mentioning this view was disabled). So if you rip on all your friends for whatever, but then don’t rip on your disabled friend for being disabled then that is treating them like that can’t handle it or that they aren’t equal.
Honestly it’s comedy, some isn’t but most is offensive. Comedy doesn’t have to be for everyone but I don’t think it should be stopped just because someone doesn’t like it. The whole punching up, punching down thing is just weird. It’s a self imposed rule people treat like law.
Probably more because it’ll tip the ones who actually have cases open on them off.
That’s like 90% of what’s in still classified docs from controversial moments in domestic investigations, information which could show the hand to people currently under investigation, and also techniques the FBI uses in evidence gathering which aren’t known to the wider public and who’s exposure could lead to suspects catching wise and closing the avenue.
If you’ve ever seen one of those get smart posts about how to avoid being identified at a demonstration, Domestic Intelligence is openly trying to avoid more shit being added to those lists of ways to avoid detection. Yes it’s absolutely adversarial to the privacy of the public but it’s a lot less conspiratorial than a blood libel agenda to cover up the child trafficking of the rich.
That’s not how major investigations of entire criminal networks work and if you weren’t trying to make blood libel cool because class consciousness or whatever you’d know better.
I’m not surprised it was ordered to be unsealed. I’ll be more than a little surprised if an accurate list is actually unsealed. But, anything’s possible I guess.
Deborah Jeane Palfrey has entered the chat. I swear I remember seeing news stories at the time saying that she’d specifically told family members: I’m not planning to kill myself, but I am threatening to release the identities of powerful men who made use of my services. If I die it’s because they killed me.
But now, all I can find is that it was clearly a suicide. Oh well.
Edit: Someone argued with me enough about it that I actually tried to read up on it, and I think what I was remembering was that Alex Jones said that if she died it’s because they killed her, and some people reported on that, along with some carefully cherry-picked quotes from her interview on his show. She did say that she wasn’t planning to kill herself, but only because he directly asked her as part of his normal Alex Jones shtick, and of course she said “no.” But she never said that on any other program, as far as I can tell, and everyone reliable who investigated concluded that the suicide was probably real. So the mystery is resolved. Sounds like she killed herself. 😢 At least I learned something today.
She actually said the exact opposite. From your link:
Palfrey’s two handwritten notes were released to the public. In one of them, she wrote to her sister, “You must comprehend there was no way out, I.E. ‘exit strategy,’ for me other than the one I have chosen here.” In another, she described her predicament as a “modern-day lynching”. She said she feared that, at the end of serving her sentence, she would be “in my late 50s a broken, penniless and very much alone woman”.[28][30]
Wait. So you’re evaluating the theory that powerful people in the US government killed a woman, faked two (…) suicide notes for her, successfully coerced her lawyer into not divulging her client list (which he has, and desperately wants to divulge), and put down the memory hole all the original news stories that talked about her being afraid she’d be killed for threatening her clients with exposure… but the fly in the whole ointment of the theory is that they’d have to find someone who could write similar to how she writes?
Honestly, I think I’m probably misremembering, and I’m mixing her up with some other person that powerful people actually did have killed. Not because the note was handwritten; I just think there would be places on the internet that were pretty readily findable where would be published the original stories I read back at the time.
I wasn’t trying to get into all of this, tbh, because like I say I’m just sort of talking and have no idea. I was just relaying my (maybe faulty) memories and letting people be their own judge.
Edit: Oh fuck, the plot thickens. I found what I was thinking of. According to randos on Reddit, she explicitly talked about not having any plans to kill herself on an episode of Alex Jones which is no longer easily available. Make of that what you will 😃.
Dude why are you talking down to me so aggressively?
I guess we’re arguing now 🤷. That honesty wasn’t my intent here; IDK how you got so much of “making my case” out of me saying so repeatedly that I was just saying what I remembered and don’t really know the facts. I’m just sort of talking. I’m such a dickhead that I’m listening to another interview with her right now looking for something relevant that I can use to “make my case” so I can know what I’m talking about, if you’re gonna get rude with me about it.
I’m aware that Alex Jones said a lot of things about her, and I agree that that doesn’t mean anything at all. What she said in his interview is relevant. Where she said it doesn’t change that. Would you agree with that? I haven’t seen anything she’s been quoted as saying in the interview that really means all that much, so maybe the “if I die it was the government” stuff is Jones’s creation. In which case, yeah, it’s garbage. If she said that on the Alex Jones show, I’d consider that pretty significant. Right? Or no?
(Edit: She was quoted in the normal-person press as saying she wasn’t planning to kill herself, but that was in response to Alex Jones directly asking her whether she was, so if that’s all she said, that means nothing. Whatever she was thinking at that point or later on, I wouldn’t expect her to say “oh yeah, it’s funny you ask, yes I am” when he asks her.)
(Edit: After skim-listening to an interview with her somewhere else and reading some of the Wikipedia talk page where people are arguing about this subject, I think you’re right and it was all just an Alex Jones creation. Oh well. I updated my original post to reflect my learning.)
Which of the people I listed do you think are conspiracy theories? Gary Webb was an American killed by Americans in government. Jamal Kashoggi was a naturalized American who was killed by the Saudis with tacit approval by the US government. Daphne Caruana Galizia was a non American killed by non Americans, so maybe that’s not that relevant, no. They were literally just random examples I picked out to show that it’s not a totally outlandish idea. People kill each other for various reasons every day; if it never happened when one of them was powerful, that would be weird. What out of all that do you consider to be a conspiracy theory?
I wasn’t talking down to you at all. You mixed real things and fake things to support a claim you yourself acknowledge is probably nonsense.
That is indeed a bad look, and people should be warned lest they fall into conspiratorial thinking, because it is neither healthy for the person nor an effective way of looking at the world.
Gary Webb was an American killed by Americans in government.
Yeah. Shot in the head. Twice. He just wasn’t successful with that first shot and had enough bearings to fix it with the second. So said the CIA and we should all believe them just like the totally-not-a-pedophile-priest.
His ex-wife said that she believed he’d killed himself.
Webb’s ex-wife, Susan Bell, told reporters that she believed Webb had died by suicide. “The way he was acting it would be hard for me to believe it was anything but suicide,” she said. According to Bell, Webb had been unhappy for some time over his inability to get a job at another major newspaper. He had sold his house the week before his death because he was unable to afford the mortgage.
Here’s a story from a local paper which is the cite. Unless the details reported are purely made up, it seems like an actually pretty compelling set of facts leading to the suicide being genuine. I literally just learned this; until yesterday, I thought they killed him too.
There’s plenty of criminal behavior by the US government adjacent to Webb and his reporting without needing to exceed what’s actually true about it.
No, really. The other guy is playing ignorant. Telle me, for real, how much does the CIA pay you to play stupid and ignorant to defend them against the obvious.
I mean for real, I’ll just skip the cash and take the cocaine itself. Not a fucking problem.
Yeah, sure. The CIA pays me to bring Gary Webb’s name unprompted into random internet threads because they feel like promoting his story is an important part of their PR.
I never really knew that much of the story until the other guy started arguing with me about it, so I spent some time at breakfast reading about it. I think he killed himself. That said, there’s plenty of malfeasance by the government. Among the things that jump out at me:
A lot of the “debunking” that other MSM newspapers did seemed a little off the mark of what Webb actually said. It’s a little unclear to me, but it kind of looks like he said that the contras dealt in cocaine, and the CIA more or less knew about it and didn’t do anything and occasionally protected them and their assets from law enforcement. But I saw several times in the “debunking” stories that someone would make a big deal about there being no evidence that the CIA itself was drug trafficking in any major way. But that’s not what Webb accused them of. He said the contras were trafficking and the CIA knew about it. And, also, the CIA released a report at some point that said, o yeah we also protected contras and traffickers from law enforcement sometimes.
On a related note, there was a weird little side note about the CIA’s PR response where they talked about having good relationships with a handful of US journalists which helped them in their response, because it looks a lot better if someone in an MSM newspaper is defending them as opposed to them issuing a statement directly defending themselves. Fuckin’ what? Here’s a story about it, which given the source you may or may not believe, and here’s a link to the report itself on cia.gov. Excerpt: "A review of the CIA drug conspiracy story – from its inception in August 1996 with the San Jose Mercury-News stories – shows that a ground base of already productive relations with journalists and an effective response by the Director of Central Intelligence’s (DCI) Public Affairs Staff (PAS) helped prevent this story from becoming an unmitigated disaster."
It’s genuinely weird that no one acknowledges that the whole backdrop for this question is the CIA supporting terrorism in central America. It’s like, sure they’re in bed with a bunch of violent terrorists with the goal of overthrowing a democratic government, but cocaine? Everyone involved treats it as if the “cocaine” part of the equation is obviously a bombshell accusation.
I was thinking about that but the other one said he’s got better than that schitzo and it’s from some European labs. Some analog from a khat derivative. Says it like mixing coke, X, & meth altogether but totally different a neurofunction. Something about serotonin instead of dopamine?
You mixed real things and fake things to support a claim you yourself acknowledge is probably nonsense.
My god, are you this pleasant to deal with in real life? I didn’t “acknowledge is probably nonsense.” I said, hey this is what I think, but I don’t really know. Your right answer to that is something along the lines of: Hey there’s a lot of evidence that this is how it happened, here it is. Instead you concocted some kind of scenario where I am “making my case” and you need to get sarcastic with me and assign me strawman views and argue against them all condescendingly.
I just looked into Gary Webb, and hey, you’re right, he actually probably did kill himself also. So I learned two things today. But because you were such a jackass about it, that’s actually sort of difficult to admit, where if you’d just said “hey I think this is wrong, his ex-wife said he was acting weird and she believes it was suicide, here’s the source” then it could have been a more factual conversation. It happens that I’m patient enough to go and look at sources myself even if you’re being combative with me, but most people won’t do that. They’ll just be toxic back at you and both of you will waste a bunch of time “making your case.” That’s an inherent risk of talking with people on the internet but you don’t need to lean into it when the other person’s just being open minded and reasonable with you.
Instead you concocted some kind of scenario where I am “making my case” and you need to get sarcastic with me and assign me strawman views and argue against them all condescendingly.
You’re talking about conspiracy theories. Your personal fictitious interpretation of events is not equal to the facts of the matter.
Here’s an actual thing you wrote (only, linking to more conspiracy theories you believe within):
Honestly, I think I’m probably misremembering, and I’m mixing her up with some other person that powerful people actually did have killed. Not because the note was handwritten; I just think there would be places on the internet that were pretty readily findable where would be published the original stories I read back at the time.
Yes, I am similarly dismissive of conspiracy theories in real life. When my boss said “I won’t get the vaccine because Bill Gates put in microchips” I didn’t acknowledge that as a serious discussion.
If you want to be treated as if the things you’re saying have value, you shouldn’t pop off arrogantly about how the US government regularly has people killed. They don’t.
Secrets aren’t good at staying secrets.
Edit: more to the point, this comment section is full of people spouting conspiracy theories. None of their theories are plausible or make any degree of sense when dug into. That they are so widespread here is because of the mindset people have - a toxic mindset that makes their brains ripe for the rot of conspiracy thinking. That should not be encouraged in any public forum, because it is contagious.
Yes, I am similarly dismissive of conspiracy theories in real life. When my boss said “I won’t get the vaccine because Bill Gates put in microchips” I didn’t acknowledge that as a serious discussion.
Hmm… okay, I think I get it. You’re putting me (and, presumably, anyone who says things that you already “know” to be false) in the same category as someone who thinks there are microchips in the vaccine. If you never make mistakes or are lacking information, that makes perfect sense. Since you do make mistakes sometimes and there are things you don’t know, that’s a stupid way to behave.
If you want to be treated as if the things you’re saying have value
I think this is another stupid way to behave. You can talk with someone who thinks different things than you do – whether they’re right or wrong – without being combative about it. It’s actually an important skill to have. It doesn’t mean the things they say “have value,” it just means it’s more productive to be factual and communicative than to be a dick about it and deliberately act as if they’re saying things they’re not saying so you can “win.”
you shouldn’t pop off arrogantly about how the US government regularly has people killed. They don’t.
I mean, the US government does regularly have people killed. Please don’t tell me that that’s different because they’re not Americans. What I said, though, was a little different than that; I said “powerful people in the US government.” The US government killing Americans as a matter of public policy is not unheard of (Fred Hampton), but I don’t think it happens all that often, no. I think it’s a little more likely that some individual person in a position of power might decide to commit a murder. Especially if their life is going to be ruined if they don’t. Are you saying that’s an impossible or outlandish suggestion?
I bet there is some catch. The only thing unsealed will be boring stuff. Oh it turns out a company Bill Clinton owned stock in, back in 1991, did some construction work for a property Epstein owned. It isn’t going to be stuff like “here is a video of Justice Thomas raping a kid”.
Probably because being on a list of names is not proof of any wrongdoing or crime but will most definitely be interpreted as such by people on the internet.
Most of the names will be innocent people and victims. All of them will be sent death threats and harassed because people will consider them pedophiles. People can’t understand two things at once (Epstein was a socialite and a child trafficker) and they don’t know what being an associate of Epstein implies. There’s good reasons to keep the list private from the masses.
Anyone who did not successfully fight to keep their name out of the civil case could see their name become public – including Epstein’s victims, co-conspirators and innocent associates.
I imagine anyone who was innocent and an associate had the money to hire the right lawyers to remove themselves.
I also imagine those who should be on it, also won’t be.
And everyone is mystified how groups like the Roman Catholic Church were able to suppress stories of child raise and trafficking for quite literally over a thousand years. Seriously a document was found from before the first crusades talking about it.
The crime doesn’t go to criminal trial because the family is bribed and threatened. Then it is in civil matter and the records get sealed. Priest goes and rapes another kid. Rinse lather repeat.
6th amendment of the US Constitution cuts both ways. People have the right to observe what the government is doing in criminal cases. If the US government is refusing to let the public know what is going on during these procedures the possibility of corruption goes from low to almost certain.
The judge stated some names will be redacted as they were victims. I also doubt someone would interact with Epstein several times and not know. He wasn’t even trying to hide it.
Seriously, one of the few remaining platforms they seem to rally around is delegitimizing trans people, fearmongering against drag queens, and censoring any books that acknowledge gay people exist. The Log Cabin Republicans have big Jews for Hitler energy.
So basically some fucking shitty investment company bought the magazine and immediately destroyed it. How sad 151 years and all gone in a blink of eye because of some shitty investors.
Investment companies are often only able to buy other companies like this when they're already declining significantly.
Magazines in general are on their way out. It makes me nostalgic-sad too, but the world is changing and this is one of the ways in which it is changing.
I agree completely. I loved magazines, I used to buy them all the time, I even went to a specialty magazine shop when I was younger in my home town and it was incredible. Eventually, things started shifting towards online and magazines started inserting more and more advertisements and less content, and then magazines just started dying out more and more. They are awesome part of history that will be sad to see go.
Yeah no shit. They feel that way because it is that way. You don’t need polls for this information. It’s economics. “Perceived” or not, it is actually, literally harder for millenials and younger adults to achieve the same level of financial stability as their parents, full stop. That’s not a matter of feeling or perception. That’s the declining real value of money. Inflation, greedflation, economic contraction at key life milestones, wealth inequality, lower indicators for health, and on and on. Across every metric I can think of off the top of my head, millenials and the next generations perform worse than previous generations due to circumstances entirely beyond their control (and largely the result of the prior generations, including dead hand control and policies directly adversarial to young adults’ accumulation of wealth). For many young adults, the best financial windfall they’ll ever experience will be when their more affluent parents die, and no active measure they can take on their own behalfs will meaningfully change it.
My mother has joked with me that she's spending my inheritance, despite her friends telling her not to say that. I didn't expect any windfall even before that, to be fair, but it's nice my own mother can be honest about the "Fuck you I got mine."
no active measure they can take on their own behalfs will meaningfully change it.
They don't seem to understand what this means to an economy. I experience it now at my job: there's no reason to work harder, there's nothing to gain. Without growth there's no reason to invest and an economy collapses. All growth right now is artificial, consolidation of smaller growth business into giant mega corporations that won't pay taxes or employees fairly.
A Greek proverb says a society grows when old men plant trees whose shade they shall never know. What's the exact opposite of that?
My mother has joked with me that she’s spending my inheritance, despite her friends telling her not to say that.
Without knowing your mother, it’s entirely possible she was first exposed to that joke when it was generally believed that your children will be at least as successful as you, thanks to ever-increasing standards of living, and never stopped to reevaluate the cruelty of the joke. But since friends are telling her to stop, she’s either willfully ignorant or being cruel.
A Greek proverb says a society grows when old men plant trees whose shade they shall never know. What’s the exact opposite of that?
A Greek proverb says a society grows when old men plant trees whose shade they shall never know. What’s the exact opposite of that?
Well what’s happening right now is old men are actively uprooting anything that won’t grow to shade tree size in their lifetimes. It’s as if their aim is to one day build their own coffin out of the absolute last tree on Earth.
My mother has joked with me that she’s spending my inheritance, despite her friends telling her not to say that. I didn’t expect any windfall even before that, to be fair, but it’s nice my own mother can be honest about the “Fuck you I got mine.”
Not that I want or expect any inheritance from my mother, but because she’s rubbing it in like this you could ask her a question. Say “As I navigate life growing up, I’ve learned many things from you so let me ask you this. How much inheritance did your parents leave you when they passed away? Are you planning on equaling (adjusted for inflation) what you received to pass on to me or are you deciding to take from them without giving back? I’m just trying to figure out how I should be a parent to my kids.”
Well, this time around they’ve got technology. They’ve got the Internet.
And they’ve learned from past attempts, and I believe they have nearly perfected their ideal society (which is really just feudalism again). Which includes exposing people to enough lies and propaganda that they will actively advocate against policies that would help “correct” things, and in favor of policies that worsen and perpetuate their (and their children’s) own situation.
At least here in the US, we’re far too comfortable with our Real Housewives, and our XBoxes to ever take real action beyond just voting. I’m including myself in this so don’t think I’m being high and mighty.
While I doubt they will close, I could easily see them stopping for 6 months so the strikers have to find new employment, then opening to those who will take a similar or smaller offer. Hell, buy a couple of hundred of peoples likeness for a few thousand each and don’t bother reviewing actors.
Death panels still aren’t a thing you dingus. No bodies of people deciding whether or not you should live or die, just people gaining the option to request it.
One involves someone who hasn’t fully developed their brain, being taken advantage of. The other involves grown people who are most likely not going to make the decision lightly, and have years of proof they’ll keep suffering. I’d also imagine it’s not some instant suicide booth like Futurama, there’s not gonna be a “Death same night, guaranteed” run of clinics.
So you don’t believe that medical conditions affect your brain?
Aging alone effects it, elderly people are arguably less mentally capable than teenagers. So if teenagers cannot consent to sex based on mental capability, then how are lower capability elderly supposed to be able to consent to death?
Those are 2 very very very different ideas you’re trying to compare, and feels like poor logic.
Teenagers can absolutely consent to sex, as sex and grooming are very different things. 2 teenagers having sex, normal. Someone much older than a teenager grooming them mentally for years to eventually have sex, not normal.
Lastly, elderly people’s mental faculties declining that hard isn’t guaranteed. Plenty of old people stay mentally sharp and capable of making decisions. Teenagers, though, 100% will have an under-developed brain until ~25, not to mention how little of life experience they’ll likely have.
Healthcare is one of those things that will consume all available resources, and we can’t do that.
Consider someone that requires round the clock, individual care. They are consuming the entire economic output of more than three people to care for someone that will have no more. I know there’s a lot of communists here, but communism doesn’t change that fact.
What if we could keep someone alive for $1M per day? How long should we do it? We shouldn’t, and “death panels” are how that needs to be decided.
You can talk about price gouging, but really high end medical care is akin to magic. It takes very smart people to do it, and something like an MRI requires liquid helium to remain superconducting. That’s just extremely expensive.
Edit: this place is really weird. So many down votes. No argument against it. Very toxic.
While this is technically true. Back in reality land they were found to be automating the process of groundless denials having doctors lie about having examined dozens of cases despite having spent all of 10 seconds in a screen clicking deny all. Our current situation IS death panels and not just for the dying.
Sure. That’s not really a death panel though. That’s the inefficiency of lots of systems. If you make someone jump through enough hoops, they’ll give up. That saves money.
Healthcare is one of those things that will consume all available resources, and we can’t do that.
Consider someone that requires round the clock, individual care. They are consuming the entire economic output of more than three people to care for someone that will have no more.
I just pointed that it doesn’t consume so much resources in EU as in US. So it can afford better care for longer period of time. And by that i mean tenfold in some cases.
And guess what, insurance companies paying for that make huge profits yearly as well.
I’m just pointing to system that can afford to keep patients alive without killing them because they or others can’t afford to pay for them while maintaining high quality care.
Off topic
Edit: this place is really weird. So many down votes. No argument against it. Very toxic.
Like when? The big one people were up in arms about was the veteran who was advised to look into it by a Veteran Affairs employee. Veteran Affairs has absolutely no say in whether someone can or should seek MAID, and that employee was acting alone. Pretty sure they got shit canned for it too.
2024: “Canada has approved medically assisted death for people who are late on their rent”
2025: “Canada has approved medically assisted death for unhoused persons”
2026: “Canada has approved medically assisted death for social parasites the disabled”
2027: “Canada has approved medically assisted death for adults and children with autism”
2028: “Canada has approved medically assisted death for those suffering from the effects of institutionalized racism”
2029: “Canada has approved medically assisted death for any First Nations, black, non-land-owning, or poor people who aren’t already dead yet, and it’s optional through 2030”
Yeah I support the right to a comfortable death, but there’s a hard line here of only for people who will die in the near future with or without intervention of a disease they’re suffering from a sufficiently advanced case of. And it needs strict controls including oversight by disabled people.
I’ve watched a person slowly and painfully waste away to a disease. But I’ve also seen people say my life isn’t worth living.
Choices still matter in drug addiction and it shouldn’t receive the final mercy we may choose to offer to the terminally ill who are unable to even end their own life. If they want to die then they should have to do it themselves without help.
Accusing you of sophistry is a complete argument if you aren’t being deliberately obtuse, which you are, and I see through it. Troll better if you want to incite.
It’s not a complete argument if you’re going to make accusations without evidence. And hurling insults and accusations instead of answering my question is clearly an evasion.
The difference is that drug addiction can be cured. Maybe we should try rehab first. If they’re not clean or OD’ed after x number of years ok maybe then. But hell let’s try first.
Drug addiction cannot be cured. For many, it can be successfully treated, but it’s a chronic condition which requires a lifetime of treatment. Results vary widely, as does quality of life for those with addiction.
And nobody is saying attempts to treat a person’s addiction shouldn’t be tried first.
Because people under the influence of drugs don’t always make choices that they won’t regret when they’re sober. I have personally witnessed people that wanted to die while fucked up on legally obtained prescription drugs used as directed because the side effects are just that bad. They don’t feel that way once they’re off that shit.
Nobody is being the judge, the individuals condition is what is preventing them from commiting suicide. And we have no moral obligation to carry out any action someone else wants, including killing them.
You are judging these individuals here, based on your morals. This isn’t about your morals, nor is anyone claiming that you are obligated to do anything. If someone else wishes to apply for this program due to their irremediable physical and/or psychological suffering, who are you to say they’re undeserving of the help, especially when it has nothing to do with you?
Are you illiterate? Would you like to prove this statement to me?
“Nobody is claiming that you are obligated”
One is not obligated, this had nothing to do with me specifically.
“Who are you to say that they’re undeserving of that help”
Because there is no obligation to enable an action based on a desire. This is simply you (and others who make this argument) carving out a moral imperative simply because it justifies something you already want (post-hoc justification).
Mixing insults with the straw man argument that this has anything to do with morality is a fallacious argument on its face. And feigning ignorance of the meaning of your own words while asserting an intellectual argument is peak mental gymnastics. And I’m not trying to justify anything— it’s you who is trying to justify denying people medically-approved care due to your stated morality and a refusal of some “obligation” that doesn’t actually exist.
Nobody but you is claiming any “obligation” to anything. This is matter between an individual and their medical providers, not one which involves you in any way. So, once again who are you to judge these people as undeserving of the state’s assistance if their medical providers approve them for it?
You literally claimed that people have an inherent right, and even in this comment you are heavily implying that not providing assisted suicide is bad. (Both moral claims. In case you don’t know morality is just a system of determining if something is good or bad).
“Nobody but you is claiming any obligation”
You are claiming that people have a right to be killed by a second party. That second party therefore has some obligation to fulfill that right.
I’m fairly certain that if everyone in the world refused to meet this obligation, you would still object because it violates the subject’s wishes.
“I’m not trying to justify anything”
Besides of course permitting a second party to kill someone.
I’ll accept that I’m trying to justify denying this right to have your desire to die fulfilled (as it simply doesn’t exist for any other action or desire) because that is simply a moral argument, just like you are making moral arguments regardless of whether you are aware of it or not.
FYI mixing insults with an argument is not a logical error as commonly claimed. As long as it not part of the premises or reasoning any statement (insult or not) has no effect on the soundness of the argument. Also my argument wasn’t that you made a moral claim, it’s extremely obvious that you did I would never have bothered to point it out. The argument is that you are arguing for second-party homicide (and impermissible act) to be allowed based on some right to have your wishes fulfilled that simply doesn’t exist.
Wow, what a hilarious rant full of outright lies and misinformation. Are you capable of telling the truth, or is your position so weak that you can’t make your point without repeatedly asserting debunked points such as imaginary “obligations” or by ignoring those with irremediable lifelong physical and/or psychological suffering as determined by medical professionals? Because you seem to want to use your own ignorance to judge these people rather than let professionals be the arbiters due to your own twisted morality.
It seems that you just want to see people suffer. Once again: who are you to judge whether someone should suffer rather than be deserving of relief? Why do you refuse to answer?
The question is not whether or not someone should suffer, but whether it is permissible to kill another, or even a proper choice. Should assisted suicide be granted for temporary conditions? After all subjects of temporary conditions suffer too and they may even wish to die. If you say no, then clearly your decision making is able to override a desire of the subject. If you say yes, then there is no logical barrier to killing any momentarily sad person.
“Who are you to judge … Why do you refuse to answer”
I’ve been answering this entire time. The answer is everyone is able to judge, there appears to be this underlying fundamental intuition and logic across humans that if followed leads to the statements I’ve made.
Feeling sad for someone and wanting to alleviate there suffering does not logically lead to “therefore we should actively kill them”.
The question is not whether or not someone should suffer
That’s the only question. Because the standard here is “irremediable lifelong physical and/or psychological suffering”. By labeling such a person “momentarily sad” you’re not only judging them, you’re placing your judgement above that of medical professionals. You’re also lying about the necessary conditions for consideration for the program.
And aiding in a person’s suicide with their consent is not the same as simply killing them.
You can’t have an honest, rational discussion, like an adult, then there’s no point in continuing
Do you literally not know what ethics is? You’ve acted like a complete and total moron in every reply on this post.
You realise you can sum your position to
If someone desires something
Then we should grant it despite any prohibition on active killing, ( presumably so long as it does not harm an individual other than the subject)
But this isn’t actually accepted by virtually anyone, see suicidality for temporary conditions or just the fact that we have no apparent obligation to grant something based on mere desire.
The entire pro-euthanasia argument relies on basing moral principles on wildly variable emotions and sympathy.
I’d prefer if it was approved for everybody. Don’t like living, and still feel that way after a mandatory counseling course you should be allowed to choose to end your life in a humane and clean way.
That is too dangerous. If it sounds like I’m asking people who want to die to endure more suffering in order to ensure eugenics becomes relegated to the trash heap of history, it’s because I am. I would rather let cancer patients wither away under painkillers than allow the state to use the forces of institutional bigotry to cleanse its undesirables, let alone overt extermination. In the United States, we would look back 20 years from now asking questions about why black people make up 75% of the medical suicides in Mississippi—or gypsies in the UK, or First Nations in Canada, or gays anywhere, or Jews everywhere—and I absolutely believe that no benefit will ever outweigh that, not ever, not even to heat death.
People are forbinned from trading stocks with insider knowledge, too. Tell me exactly what constitutes a recommendation, and I can find you a way to completely flout the rule while obeying the letter of it. I’ll always be able to, you can’t win that arms race.
What exactly is the motivation to kill people by assisted suicide from the individual doctor? People can do illegal things, you’re right. What is the point of any law with your mentality?
That’s a sophistical argument, I think I’ve made it abundantly clear that the point is potential for abuse, especially passed down from on high such as in the Welles Fargo scandal.
‘Mandatory counselling course’ sounds like not trying very hard just to rush to the next step. Something hitler would say if he was looking to save on gas.
You’re comparing something that was forced upon people to something that is a choice and which a person must qualify for. It’s comparing apples and oranges.
“In probably unrelated news, remote workers love how they can’t be micromanaged or watched over their shoulders and are frustrated and disoriented by return-to-office plans.”
The kinds of bosses that don’t want me working from home are the exact ones I want to hide at home from. The ones who already aren’t a micromanager I’m actually quite happy to come into the office and work with and around.
Been on both sides and Oof. Luckily now with a boss that’s happy to have me wfh but I don’t take him up on it too much cause I just genuinely like being in the office!
The kinds of bosses that don’t want me working from home are the exact ones I want to hide at home from. The ones who already aren’t a micromanager I’m actually quite happy to come into the office and work with and around.
Been on both sides and Oof. Luckily now with a boss that’s happy to have me wfh but I don’t take him up on it too much cause I just genuinely like being in the office!
The kinds of bosses that don’t want me working from home are the exact ones I want to hide at home from. The ones who already aren’t a micromanager I’m actually quite happy to come into the office and work with and around.
Been on both sides and Oof. Luckily now with a boss that’s happy to have me wfh but I don’t take him up on it too much cause I just genuinely like being in the office!
The kinds of bosses that don’t want me working from home are the exact ones I want to hide at home from. The ones who already aren’t a micromanager I’m actually quite happy to come into the office and work with and around.
Been on both sides and Oof. Luckily now with a boss that’s happy to have me wfh but I don’t take him up on it too much cause I just genuinely like being in the office!
The kinds of bosses that don’t want me working from home are the exact ones I want to hide at home from. The ones who already aren’t a micromanager I’m actually quite happy to come into the office and work with and around.
Been on both sides and Oof. Luckily now with a boss that’s happy to have me wfh but I don’t take him up on it too much cause I just genuinely like being in the office!
The kinds of bosses that don’t want me working from home are the exact ones I want to hide at home from. The ones who already aren’t a micromanager I’m actually quite happy to come into the office and work with and around.
Been on both sides and Oof. Luckily now with a boss that’s happy to have me wfh but I don’t take him up on it too much cause I just genuinely like being in the office!
The kinds of bosses that don’t want me working from home are the exact ones I want to hide at home from. The ones who already aren’t a micromanager I’m actually quite happy to come into the office and work with and around.
Been on both sides and Oof. Luckily now with a boss that’s happy to have me wfh but I don’t take him up on it too much cause I just genuinely like being in the office!
The kinds of bosses that don’t want me working from home are the exact ones I want to hide at home from. The ones who already aren’t a micromanager I’m actually quite happy to come into the office and work with and around.
Been on both sides and Oof. Luckily now with a boss that’s happy to have me wfh but I don’t take him up on it too much cause I just genuinely like being in the office!
The kinds of bosses that don’t want me working from home are the exact ones I want to hide at home from. The ones who already aren’t a micromanager I’m actually quite happy to come into the office and work with and around.
Been on both sides and Oof. Luckily now with a boss that’s happy to have me wfh but I don’t take him up on it too much cause I just genuinely like being in the office!
The kinds of bosses that don’t want me working from home are the exact ones I want to hide at home from. The ones who already aren’t a micromanager I’m actually quite happy to come into the office and work with and around.
Been on both sides and Oof. Luckily now with a boss that’s happy to have me wfh but I don’t take him up on it too much cause I just genuinely like being in the office!
Newsom, we get it - you want to run for president. But don't fuck up my state to do it.
You've done ok in CA when you've kept your mouth shut and followed in Brown's footsteps, but this latest bullshit display of throwing widely popular progressive initiatives (this one passed 66 to 9) under the bus is a slap in the face to all Californians, proving yet again that you're an empty neo-liberal suit playing progressive to pander to the public.
California is not your billboard for a future presidential run. Do your damn job and stop using your veto pen to try to appeal to voters who aren't even your constituents yet.
In theory they can, but it's very unlikely, as it requires a 2/3rds majority in both the Assembly and the Senate. One of the things I severely dislike about California politics is that the Governor's veto power is near absolute in practice. On top of that this state has an entrenched political machine that has invested in Newsom since he ran for Mayor of San Francisco - and many in Sacramento owe their careers to him. There's no realistic chance any of these vetoes get overridden.
They have the numbers they need to do it, but like you suggest they are more loyal to Newsom than they are to their constituents. My guess is the only reason these bills are reaching his desk is so he can veto them; giving the legislators a chance to build a progressive portfolio for more local races while he gets to establish himself as more centrist.
I find it interesting how people who were voted in can just completely go against their voter’s wishes and nobody can do anything about it until their term is up (at least in a timely fashion, as far as I know). That really sucks
Seems pretty broken doesn’t it? Makes me wonder what they are there for in the first place if it’s not to represent us. There’s gotta be a better way, especially with all the technology we have nowadays.
The pandemic made it clear to us that our literal lives don't matter. Record profits have pretty much never made their way into worker's pockets. Wages have been stagnant against forty years of inflation and record housing costs, while shareholders and C-suites struggle to decide between a private jet or a second yacht. And climate change is coming for all of us. Given all that, why the fuck should we care about some job that has literally never cared about us? Why wouldn't we get to pursue some work-life balance, and spend what little time and money that are being left to us on something that makes us happy?
Plus the increased work life balance has been proven by studies to be more productive because people working shorter hours and/or from home are more productive then the regular 40 in the office.
"But I can't recognize it by looking at it so everyone must be lazy" some rich jackass.
Unfortunately, leadership positions tend to be mostly interactions with others by forming working relationships and establishing trust so they see skilled workers who are avoiding work by chatting about non-work stuff to be productive team building even when done to excess. So they consider that not being lazy even if it is when done to excess for that particular position.
Can't talk about sports teams and 'team build' in the same way when working at home in their eyes.
I think it’s because they can’t pull people into their office and give them illegal or unethical tasks off the record. Slack and email all leave a paper trail.
Ugh. The number of vacuous conversations endured/overheard in offices about sports. And the insufferable adages, analogies and idiotic motivational speeches comparing sports and wage slavery. Where’s my fucking stapler?
Setting aside how fucking stupid it is to think that way, people can still talk about stuff like that. In fact, they can now do it without even having to leave their PC!
No logic here beyond a bunch of loser control freaks missing their completely unnecessary micromanaging.
TL;DR female astronauts have, according to the study:
a higher risk of cancer (a 45-year-old man has a 344-day limit in space to be safe versus a 187-day limit for a 45-year-old woman)
more orthostatic intolerance
more UTIs (which makes sense as women on earth are also more likely to have UTIs)
less vision impairment compared to male astronauts (no clinically significant cases of VIIP syndrome)
less hearing problems (men show a more rapid decline in the left ear and in general like on Earth)
Keep in mind that this data is not the best because only around 20% of people that had been on the ISS at the time were women and because male astronauts are more likely to come from a military background.
I’m guessing a crew of people sent on Mars would be slightly more tested than your average man/woman. Even the requirements for Antarctica are probably minimal compared to that.
Remember the secret service deleted all their text messages and communications at request from the whitehouse? Remember pence was terrified to get in the car with them and refused?
That was actually Major, their younger dog at the time. Champ was their elderly dog who died a couple years ago. They since got a younger pup, Commander, and he too, has been biting staffers, but I don’t know if they revealed which agencies the victims work for. Maybe Commander is copying what his elder brother does, but iirc Major doesn’t live in the White House too often nowadays. He might just have the same intuition.
Do we have any proof that the messages were deleted on the instruction of the White House? I've always thought they arranged the mass-deletion on their own - but it was a very busy time and I might well have missed the bit about them being ordered to delete them.
All true. However, there's a difference between being told/ordered to do a thing, and thinking (on your own), "Hey if I do this thing it'll cover my ass and help my side". OP is claiming they were told to do it - and that may be true, but I'd like some proof toward that.
What’s more likely? That they all independently had the same idea to commit the same crime at the same time, or that their ringleader told them to do it, so they did it?
This is likely bullshit, your milage may vary…but I though they used encrypted black berries. Its on a private network/vpn separate from civilian traffic.
It seems like Trump threw a fit about it at one time.
The search was so secret that Twitter was barred from telling Trump the search warrant had been obtained for his account, and Twitter was fined $350,000 because it delayed producing the records sought under the search warrant.
This is different from a FISA warrant I think. It’s not that it was “secret”, in that it won’t ever be public. Just that they didn’t tell trump first, which as far as I know is pretty standard
A statute requires notice of the existence and scope of the warrant. Here, it sounds like the court issued a discretionary protective order, further limiting the contents of Twitters notice letter to trump.
If you’re not a fan look into services that have a “canary in the coal mine” or “warranty canary”, the best example of this being at work I can remember would be lavabit or true crypt (RIP). Take what I say with more than a grain of salt… just an old privacy advocate that may dive to deep sometimes haha adjusts tinfoil hat
Yes, that's generally how electronic record searches go. I don't get why "secret" is bolded, since any of us would be getting the exact same treatment if there was a warrant for our own accounts. This at least is equitable in that it's equally unfair under the laws that these very same people had no problem with when they were in power.
Yeah, THAT’S what CNN should’ve said in the headline. Investigations into Trump are so ordinary now they’re barely news, but Twitter ignoring the law and the search warrant — that ought to be big news.
There are still serious news sites and government agencies using Twitter, something that’s been feeling more and more problematic to me. It would be nice if today’s news started a groundswell, or at least a conversation about that. Twitter has made itself into a forum for nutters, and now this? To anyone who’s still on Twitter, I would ask — Why?
I wish we saw more stuff like this with corps being slapped around even a little bit where it hurts (their bank account) when they drag their feet or don’t comply.
Good luck finding right-wing professors, Ron. Alumni of the Florida Universities are going to be really mad when the schools can’t fund football and basketball in the coming years. They already have a recruiting crisis due to Ron’s actions.
If conservatives become convinced that they can not win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. The will reject democracy.
If conservatives become convinced that an education makes people less conservative, then they will not gaze inward to wonder why that might be, but instead reject education.
Education is teaching kids to think for themselves while giving them the ability to tell fact from bullshit.
Indoctrination is forcing your own ethics, morals, and beliefs onto children who lack the ability to discern fact from bullshit, usually early enough in their development to ensure that the bullshit you’ve forced onto them becomes permanently encoded into their brain structure.
Nobody’s indoctrinating college students. The students are being taught to critically analyze information and are using that critical analysis to realize that the worldview they’ve been spoon-fed is bullshit.
I think some confusion has happened since I made my last comment. I was under the impression that Education != indoctrination was saying that DeSantis wasn’t going after educators, but instead, getting rid of “indoctrination”.
I wholeheartedly agree that the major difference is that education teaches to question your world, and indoctrination tells you to shut up and get in line. What DeSantis is getting rid of is education, and making room for indoctrination.
Education is the act of imparting knowledge, usually with the goal of improving general understanding and critical thinking skills, while indoctrination carries inherent connotations of partisanship - usually about believing a specific doctrine or ideology, even if facts or evidence suggests it to be untrue.
At some level, education is about instilling certain ideas and theories within an audience for the purpose of driving some kind of social activity. Whether that activity is academic research or religious proselytization depends on the information being conveyed. But every form of education does require a certain set of axioms be taken at face value.
People tend to lose sight of the fundamental and necessary techniques used in imparting new knowledge while fixating on the relative values that the new knowledge provides when they toss out words like “indoctrination”.
Professor isn’t a title many on the right can achieve. A Education PhD, published research, and the clout in the education community play a role. The education community rarely produces any right wingers outside of the business related schools.
You do not need a teaching degree to be a professor.
Most universities are private institutions, and can employ whomever they see fit in whichever positions they seem appropriate. They have a vested interest in employing accredited individuals.
What I am saying is Florida will run out of such individuals at which time, it will become very easy for anyone to become a college professor.
Also, I have been a college professor, and I only have an undergrad. Not in teaching. It was my actual title.
And I am explaining that it is the case. Anyone who calls themselves a professor and doesn’t have a doctorate in their field is a hypocrite and a charlatan. I view them the same as a civilian pretending to be a military member or veteran. Sorry but you have to earn that title, not just give it to yourself.
Absolutely no shortage of right-wing academics and ideologues who would be happy to take an $80k/year stipend to tell their RAs to play PraegerU videos for an auditorium-sized classroom while they clumsily flirt with freshman co-eds in the back office.
Once you abandon the idea of education as a real thing that colleges are actually supposed to do, its basically just a no-show job that functions as a kick-back to your cronies.
But won’t that mean that everyone will just go to universities in other States? Isn’t the point here about a brain drain, not the complete loss of all population.
The people with no brains to drain will stay in Florida presumably.
But won’t that mean that everyone will just go to universities in other States?
That depends on how you value your college degrees. If degrees represent real useful career knowledge, then sure. But if they’re just tokens handed out to a social network, then why would I leave Florida U if I know an FU degree will land me a good job in a high-paying Florida business? If I’m just working the sales desk of a construction company or doing entry level accounting on my way to completing my CPA license or Real Estate License, who cares whether U. Miami or Florida State is a diploma mill?
The people with no brains to drain will stay in Florida presumably.
There are plenty of very good doctors that come out of Baylor and Brigham Young University, despite both campuses being notoriously far-right. You don’t need a liberal education to learn to code. You don’t need it to update actuarial tables at a big insurance company. You don’t need it to help run a multi-billion dollar media empire.
There is no shortage of good money in cultivating a large loyal contingent of right-wing academics, either. Certainly Milton Friedman and Karl Ichan and Charlie Munger did very well for themselves.
And where will the drained brains even go? It isn’t as though Silicon Valley or Wall Street are lacking for far-right ideological leaders. In the end, you’re still going to end up working at Exxon or Apple or FOX Media or Goldman Sachs, no matter how liberal your politics. Moving to California won’t save you from Peter Thiel or Ben Shapiro.
It’s not that having a right leaning political viewpoint will prevent you from learning higher skills it’s just that if businesses consider Florida to not be of high education quality then they won’t accept their diplomas.
Sure if I can just pay some money and then lie around doing nothing and get a degree that’s great, but only if the degree is actually valid outside of Florida. Otherwise I wanted a qualification that gives me options.
if businesses consider Florida to not be of high education quality then they won’t accept their diplomas.
The education that’s being targeted isn’t business school training or software development. DeSantis isn’t defunding the petroleum engineering department. This is all revolving around the liberal arts schools, effectively forcing out anyone with a history or english lit degree that doesn’t spend the weekends in white hoods.
news
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.