It's a shame she's not a male athlete with a promising swimming career. Might have gotten off with having to take a remedial driving course and paid a small fine.
You do mean Brock Allen Turner who was indicted five charges: two for rape, two for felony sexual assault, and one for attempted rape? This all happened on January 18, 2015.
It’s good to see on lemmy that people are we continuing the tradition of reminding readers of rapist Brock Turner aka. Allen Turner, the creep who got off ridiculously easy in a uniquely egregious violation of justice.
He shall not find the peace the judge wanted to grant him.
Yes, and apparently just bought a house right by the university and a major bike path, and has been seen out at bars in the area. What a fucking predator.
Honestly, if she hadn’t threaded to kill her boyfriend with her car before this happened, then I think suspending her license for a decade or two or may be life would be the right solution. Prison shouldn’t be a punishment, but a way to keep everyone else safe from dangerous people. If she won’t drive, then she isn’t a danger. But it sounds like she’s dangerous no matter what.
Yes, but mercy and rehabilitation should not come at the expense of the innocent.
Plus, when I think rehabilitating people in jail, I’m thinking of nonviolent offenses. Premeditated murder isn’t on my list of crimes I think someone can come back from, not when it’s like this.
Prison helps keep people safe, create deterrent, prevents vigilantism. Rehabilitation is the humane thing to do, but it is not why we isolate criminals.
The trial featured surveillance video played in court showing the moment Shirilla accelerated towards the building without stopping, until a gut-wrenching crash is heard.
Anyone capable of doing this deserves prison time.
Agreed. We know she did it on purpose and is a dangerous person in general, not just a careless or even reckless driver. She needs to be in prison to keep us safe. Shes different than someone who is merely a bad driver, or even a reckless driver who just needs to be kept out of a car to keep everyone around them safe.
Yes, it absolutely should be. I can’t stand people who think the criminal justice system shouldn’t dole out punishments, but should only aim to rehabilitate people. You folks have absolutely no empathy for victims. Punishments are important, because criminals cause suffering to other people. The entire concept of justice is based on the idea that criminals should suffer at least a modicum of the harm they do to others as payment for their crimes. Over the centuries, we have done away with the “eye for an eye” model of punishment and decided that the worst sentences we can hand down are execution and life in prison, and most people today aren’t actually in favor of execution. Spending your life in prison is a slap on the wrist compared to being murdered.
I’m sure this girl could be rehabilitated within a few years. Under your model, she’d walk free while the parents and siblings of her victims were still trying to recover mentally from what she did to their families. Your lack of empathy for them is repugnant. You should feel ashamed.
Yeah! Instead the victims should be forced to pay for the perpetrator to live with free meals and housing for decades rather than attempting to treat the core of the issue if at all possible and turning these people ideally into healthy contributors to society as fast as humanely possible! That definitely helps the victims!
Seems like you are blending the concepts of punishment and that of revenge. While a criminal, who’s crime has been proved in court should absolutely be punished for the crimes he/she committed according to the corresponding law, the sentences should not be led or even influenced by the feeling of “taking revenge for the victims”, because that’s not what a punishment should be about.
I guess this is one of the main differences between judicial systems and their underlying philosophies in the US and in Europe. While in the US the state can kill / execute some person, because this person has killed another person, that would be unthinkable in Europe, because the state does not have such a “right” and killing / executing a murderer would also be a crime against that person’s life.
European systems are more driven by the idea of “resocialising” criminals, so that they could eventually become acceptable members of society again some day.
I really hope this kind of shit is pissing people off as much as it does us. It sure riles me the fuck up, and at a minimum serves as a reminder to keep voting.
At the time, Musk himself had complained that the price for Twitter was too high, but he decided to go ahead with the deal after waffling over it for a while.
Mmmmmmmmm that’s not how I’d describe it, Marketwatch.
I mean, he did have to decide if he wanted to pay the money and take the company, or just pay the money, as he’d signed a solid agreement. So there was a choice.
Teens are constantly sleepy because that’s how teens work. School start times especially make it impossible to for them to get proper sleep. I’d say it’s ridiculous that someone who has authority over teens doesn’t understand the fucking basics of teens but it’s the Us criminal justice system where authority is made up and the credentials don’t matter.
Teenagers need 8-10 hours of sleep and don’t get tired until later in the evening, so waking up in time for a 7-8 am start time can compromise their sleep
That’s the reason against starting late. Parents want older siblings to be available to babysit after school and employers want a 16 year old’s shift to start at 14:30, not 16:30. Extracurricular activities (which should be supported, as long as the children themselves want to do them and as long as they’re not actively harmful to children) can often run 90-150 minutes with changing time and warmups, which makes a later start time logistically difficult for families with children of various ages who want to eat dinner together.
It’s a complicated issue and a solution which involves shorter school hours seems to me to be the best one, but that’s obviously even harder to implement without cutting things that are important, so I don’t know how to actually solve this problem.
I live in Germany now, which has tracking. This seems both hella classist and better for ensuring kids can get sufficient sleep. I would love to know if any country/school system has figured out how to do it in a way that doesn’t deprive some kids of future opportunities.
Probably could swing the shorter hours by reducing summer vacation.
Take classes to double blocks with an alternating cycle in case classes get too short.
This would anger sports coaches that want to use summer for torturing their kids training camp, and farmers that like the cheaper-than-illegal-immigrants that need summer jobs.
You’re right. I feel like that takes a fundamental part of my childhood away from other kids, but with the child labor laws in some states, that was no longer safe anyway.
For us it was 7:20 high school, 8:20 elementary, 9:20 middle school. Reason was using the same busses and high schoolers were more likely to need time after school for work or sports/band/after school groups.
In practice it meant that I could pull 40 hour work weeks starting at 16, then by 18 be working some nights till 1-3am and getting up for school in the morning. Stupid decisions were made.
They made laws to further limit the hours kids could work after to try to make healthier opportunities for kids. Unfortunately a certain governor is trying to carve those laws up now. (Desantis)
Wow, 9? That must have been nice. I had to get up at 6:30 every day. It was awful and I was always tired until college where I could schedule when classes started.
I don’t understand why school has to be a full day either. I’m sure teachers could use an extra hour every morning to do their prep, planning, and grading.
She really shouldn’t, though. In our FPTP system without ranked-choice voting, that unfortunately means that instead of her or the candidate AIPAC corruptly funneled in millions to boot her out, a Republican could take the position instead, and we really can’t afford that in the House this race.
In our FPTP system without ranked-choice voting, that unfortunately means that instead of her or the candidate AIPAC corruptly funneled in millions to boot her out, a Republican could take the position instead
That’s how it works with presidential elections and others where the party nominees are the ones with the most support.
AIPAC buying the primary notwithstanding, she would be by far the best known and most popular candidate to run and being cheated by a genocide apologia factory and their handpicked empty shell candidate is an excellent additional narrative to run on in addition to her stellar work in Congress.
People were caught off guard. It’s extremely liked that most of the people swayed by the smears AIPAC paid for didn’t know that the deceptively named United Democracy Project was actually hidden foreign election meddling.
It’s much more likely that people know now and I don’t know about you, but I’d be pissed off if I was them.
She’d probably be the favorite. A lot of people probably didn’t know that they were being gaslighted or even that AIPAC was the source and are rightly pissed off about it.
I think you’re really overestimating the Palestine issue on the general voting population. She made some other major mistakes that hurt her in the primary. Coming out so strongly against the infrastructure bill that has been such an immediate positive impact in so many people’s lives for instance.
Coming out so strongly against the infrastructure bill that has been such an immediate positive impact in so many people’s lives for instance.
She voted against it because the good parts didn’t gi anywhere near far enough, the bad parts such as mass privatization of critical infrastructure went too far, and the DNC leadership split the best parts off into a separate bill that they then let die, in spite of explicitly promising not to.
It’s nowhere near as good as it’s made out to be by neoliberals, the billionaire-owned media, and other loyalists to the party leadership, and she was right to withdraw her support after they broke that promise and doomed the parts she was championing.
Yeah I’ve heard her arguments, it’s just that voters don’t appreciate those arguments clearly. They’ve made that loud and clear to her in particular. Most voters would prefer to take one step forward than standing still. They prefer a little good to a hypothetical perfect. They would rather politicians do things that help them and their community right now. So when you go out against a bill that people can see tangible effects from, people who are desperate for something anything to help them, you’ve kind of missed the point of Public Service. It’s a lesson some progressives never seem to learn. Progressive change is made, just as the word implies, progressively. Step by step by step. You can’t make things better if you never start making things better.
Most voters would prefer to take one step forward than standing still. They prefer a little good to a hypothetical perfect
If only! That bill was very much half a step forward, three steps back when it came to both infrastructure and climate change.
They would rather politicians do things that help them and their community right now
That’s not the net effect though. The parts nobody talks about, such as the privatization of critical infrastructure and increasing fossil fuel leases many times over harm a lot more than the things constantly promoted help.
So when you go out against a bill that people can see tangible effects from,
Which included a lot more bad things that they weren’t told about by the party and the billionaire-owned media. Even the far right echo chamber didn’t talk about those things because they considers them good and didn’t want to give the Dems any credit.
people who are desperate for something anything to help them
People who are being lied to by both omission and exaggeration
you’ve kind of missed the point of Public Service.
On the contrary. Cori Bush was honest about what was in the bill, what wasn’t, and why she voted against it.
The DNC leadership and the media, on the other hand, gaslighted people into supporting something that wasn’t what they told people. As is almost always the case, the bill has the net effect of helping people a little bit while harming them a lot to enrich the owner donors.
That’s not public service. That’s lies and corruption.
You can’t make things better if you never start making things better.
You also can’t make things better by making things worse and then lying about it.
The bill gives crumbs to regular people and climate change mitigation in exchange for entire loaves for exploitative private industry including the fossil fuel industries.
same here; hearing about all of the people who have been displaced by aipac was starting to make me thing that money was the end all and be all of our world.
The more you think of it, reality TV, is the real threat to the entire world. Trump was boen in the bowels of false expecting and production managers on the cutting room floor making creating narratives and then feeding it to the masses as “reality.” I really dread the advent of the youtube president and maybe if we live in a benevolent world the TikTok president will be ok.
I also think Kamala doesn’t mind being out in front, which is refreshing. Hilary never wanted to do press during her run, who would, but I don’t know how she thought she could run a campaign like that.
Biden, too, though. Trump was DOA in 2024, he just had to sit back and put his name on the ticket. Sure, after his last debate in 2024 he attempted to make the rounds but it was obvious why he shouldn’t run at that point.
Like fire the few unqualified corrupt shitheads that were appointed by a felon rapist traitor? Judges appointed by traitors that follow Putin’s will should no longer be judges. It’s a matter of national security.
They don’t have to retract the ruling, they specifically said the supreme court can still revoke what the president does. So only trump is allowed whatever he wants.
Yeah. His family was conservative and pro-2A. Whatever the narrative is here, it isn’t a left-wing thing. The way the right has a fetish for guns, no one is surprised.
I’m not saying this guy is definitely a lefty, I don’t think they have enough information to say anything with a lot of confidence yet. He had a one time donation to Act Blue, which doesn’t mean a lot, and he was a registered Republican, which also doesn’t mean a ton either.
There are plenty of 2A lefties that own guns too, a couple of my friends are darn near progressive (US progressive, not EU progressive) and own a decent number of rifles, shotguns, and pistols. Owning a gun or multiple guns does not automatically make you a right winger, at least not in America.
I don’t pretend to know what this guy was thinking though. Just saying it’s still early and we don’t know a ton.
We're talking past each other here. I presume I'm no less invested in keeping fascists out of office than you are. That doesn't provide any excuse not to fully inform myself, or to pretend that something is anything other than what it really is.
You're talking in context of the upcoming election. I'm talking in context of not abandoning reality. Discarding nuance because other people are irrational doesn't serve you well in the broader scheme. Let them be confidently wrong. They aren't going to care what your argument is regardless of what you say, so serve yourself better by giving things their due consideration.
We are not quite talking past each other. No, don’t let them be confidently wrong. Put the argument into language they can understand. You have no hope of convincing anyone outside of your own circles with the attitude that some people are too stupid to understand.
So what argument are you making when they are acting with insufficient information and there isn't yet sufficient information to come to any actual conclusion? If it's anything other than "we don't know yet / I don't know, and neither do you" that's not grounded in reality. "I don't know" is a perfectly valid statement, but it happens a lot that people favor something definitive if flawed. That's a problem when "I don't know" is ultimately accurate, not abandoning nuance, and using language that anybody can understand. But that is essentially what the comment you replied to was saying when you said nuance isn't relevant.
I'm not saying anyone is too stupid to understand. I'm not using willful ignorance to imply an inability to understand, but rather that they simply don't know, and don't care to know.
You say, “I don’t know, but-” and then you talk about how, for example, there were a lot of guns in the shooter’s home and talk about American gun culture. You use it as a starting point.
This back and forth is getting dangerously close to being overwrought. If we disagree by such minimal degrees I don't really care to pursue this further. I think we've both made our point.
Yeah so what if he registered Republican and his classmates talk at length about how conservative he was? He’s probably a communist because he supposedly gave $15 once to act blue /s
I haven’t read any reports on what his classmates are saying. I’m not jumping to conclusions. I’m just saying it’s early and there is a ton of misinformation and owning a gun or multiple guns doesn’t automatically make him a right winger, it’s just one data point.
Yeah! He’s only been held civilly liable for calling a woman a liar after she talked about how he raped her.
And he threatened that one woman out of testifying that he raped her when she was a kid, so that’s not a conviction.
He talked about “grabbing them by the pussy” but that’s only his own words!
We have multiple testimonies of trump raping kids with Epstein, his name shows up in the Epstein records a lot, there’s photographs of them together, and Trump talked about being friends with Epstein, but that’s like… So what? That could happen to anyone.
Most rapists also havent bragged to Howard Stern on his show about walking into beauty pageant dressing rooms unannounced to peep on young girls.
Most rapists havent been recorded bragging to Billy Bush about grabbing women by the pussy without their consent.
Most rapists arent on video dancing and chatting up Jeffery Epstein at their own club, pointing out a woman and saying “she’s hot” and later at that same party grabbing a woman and patting her on the butt.
Most rapists havent been convicted of defrauding people in order to steal their money to pay a pornstar to not talk about the extramarital affair he had.
Most rapists werent president when Jeffery Epstein died in prision despite being on suicide watch and under 24 hour surveillance. The tapes mysteriously dissapearring and guards not saying anything.
But Trump has done all that (except being convicted of rape, of course.)
They can’t keep deregulating if they can’t keep blaming the government. And the more they deregulate, the more that goes wrong, the more they can claim the government wasn’t prepared for.
Connecting to any of the other interconnects would make absolutely no difference in this case, where the issue is a hurricane knocked down trees and power lines. The Texas grid has functioned just fine every single day since the 2021 ice storm that landed it in the news. What’s happening here is a local outage like would happen in literally any city that experiences a severe weather event
Edit: Lots of downvoting but no one explaining how connecting to another interconnect would make any difference at all here. For context, Hurricane Beryl and Hurricane Sandy made landfall with the same sustained wind velocity. Sandy knocked out power to over 6 million people for days in NY and NJ
Uh…none of these say anything about how connecting to another interconnect would affect anything about these Houston outages. The Texas grid has been up and running this entire time, the current outages are due to downed power lines in the Houston area
Funny how other Gulf States don’t have serious power emergencies twice a year. The fact of the matter is that Texas has the least reliable power grid in the country, making them the least prepared for any natural disasters. Which is a problem since Texas is the second most prone state to get a natural disaster.
If you think your government forcing regular citizens to buy generators to make sure they aren’t without power is normal, you’re a lost cause.
The Texas grid would be better off it it wasn’t solely reliant on local sources and has redundancy. Your answer to that is to become the redundancy out of your own pocket. Lol
Literally every state except for texas. The longest power outage I’ve ever personally seen in my entire life was less than 10 hours and that one only affected a couple city blocks. Most power outages in my area last less than a minute because thats all the time it takes to automatically reroute power around the damaged sections. In any reasonably designed grid large scale power outages that last more than a few moments just don’t happen.
You’re part of the problem. No matter what breaks down in a Republican system you people do whatever you can to avoid the reality that Republicans are greedy. And their greed hurts you. But sure, let’s blame nature even though no other state has a problem on this scale, this often.
What they can control is the integrity of their grid. No other state has this problem. Plenty of states get hit by hurricanes and none have this massive statewide emergency multiple times a year.
But ya blame the weather, not the people fleecing you as your grid is in shambles.
If you KNOW you get massive storms you harden your power grid as much as is feasible to minimize damage. Instead Texas has chosen the path of deregulation in order to maximize profits at acceptable losses. Your loss. Their gain. That’s what happens when the private sector rules.
Out of the 151 breast reductions that were performed in 2019 on American minors, 146 (97 percent) were performed on cisgender males.
The thing is, growing up in an evangelical church they don’t want these people getting breast reduction surgery either. they firmly believe that any change to the body is going against God’s will regardless of the physical or mental harm it may cause.
People are awful. If there’s nothing that they can be mean about, they’ll make shit up. I suspect most of that was more because she was rich/famous/influential in her own right rather than being tied to a husband.
(though she’s married. I looked it up outta curiosity. He doesn’t even have a Wikipedia page…
Dolly’s husband has never been a part of her public persona. He’s always been in the background and almost everyone has respected his/her choice on the matter.
There are other forms of MGM too. Fortunately most of them are rare these days. Castration, subincision, penectomy.
And then there’s intersex people. That are routinely subject to “corrective surgery” in infancy. As adults they tend to be firmly of the opinion they should have been left alone and that the surgeries were harmful.
IMO bodily integrity and autonomy is a fundamental human right that should be absolutely respected for every human being.
The Hebrew Bible maybe, but it’s pretty clearly outlined by Paul in the new testament that non-jewish Catholics definitely don’t have to follow Jewish custom (and don’t have to be circumcised in particular)
Yes, despite it being very simple and my having explained it clearly…
sorry
No, being “confusing and distracting” by muddying the waters was you whole point. You’re clearly arguing in bad faith. It’s just that I called you out.
Facing the consequences of your actions is not a state of victimhood.
ah there’s our miscommunication! i am not arguing anything i just misunderstood at first and offered a possible solution/additional context
but i was wrong so i issued my apologies and asked for clarification :)
you stated there was something that was a problem with the reporting, and i inaccurately surmised that it had to do with trans people experiencing hate. what was it in reality?
Sealioning (also sea-lioning and sea lioning) is a type of trolling or harassmentthat consists of pursuing people with relentless requests for evidence, often tangential or previously addressed, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity (“I’m just trying to have a debate”), and feigning ignorance of the subject matter.[1][2][3][4] It may take the form of “incessant, bad-faith invitations to engage in debate”,[5] and has been likened to a denial-of-service attack targeted at human beings.[6] The term originated with a 2014 strip of the webcomicWondermark by David Malki,[7] which The Independent called “the most apt description of Twitter you’ll ever see”.[8]
Just asking questions (also known as JAQing off, or as emojis: "🤔🤔🤔"[1]) is a way of attempting to make wild accusations acceptable (and hopefully not legally actionable) by framing them as questions rather than statements. It shifts the burden of proof to one’s opponent; rather than laboriously having to prove that all politicians are reptoid scum, one can pull out one single odd piece of evidence and force the opponent to explain why the evidence is wrong.
The tactic is closely related to loaded questions or leading questions (which are usually employed when using it), Gish Gallops (when asking a huge number of rapid-fire questions without regard for the answers), and Argumentum ad nauseam (when asking the same question over and over in an attempt to overwhelm refutations).
My mother (religious) once told me my tattoos make her sad. There are only two that are visible on a forearm (the third is under my shirt). I told her that they make me feel happy. She’s never brought it up again. But hers is less fervent, still rooted in the same origin.
I’m guessing that’s because the Bible says no tattoos in the same book where it says not to eat pork and shellfish, but Christians only believe the passages in the Pentateuch if they’re okay with them.
Bible says no pork, pork is ok.
Bible says not to be gay in the exact same book, being gay is an abomination unto the lord.
this should hilight to us the outsized effect transphobia has on discourse.
if we were to believe the line that “we’re just concerned about people getting mutilated” we must naturally expect to see that 97% margin of outrage at breast implants, hair implants, weight management surgery etc. for cis folk.
and we don’t. here and there you might hear an evangelical getting upsetti spaghetti avout Ozempic et al but transphobic talking points dominate, in vast disproportion to actual individual cases.
Well except for giant fake titties, God wants those. If we can get those on some minors, I’m pretty sure Republicans would shut the fuck up for decades.
My mother is fond of saying “God doesn’t make junk”. Easily disproven whether or not you believe in a god, but she’s a “if I don’t like it, it didn’t happen” variety of Trump supporter, so I err on the side of changing the subject over arguing.
Thank you. It is really difficult. It’s especially hard to find the line. (Un)fortunately for me she’s always been unreasonable per se, so I already had her at arm’s length before Trump flopped onto the scene.
Oh they absolutely do. The alternative is men with breasts. They’ll say they don’t, but when the time comes to accept cis men’s bodies when they fall outside “male” expectations they won’t.
Apparently the way Lemmy’s link creation works makes all first-level replies to your comment the same link AS your comment. So, in providing the link ‘to be helpful’, you only linked to your own comment. That’s not actually helpful and so it doesn’t come across in the best way.
Just FYI, I was responding to a libertarian regular who thinks there should essentially be no gun regulations.
Also, they’re a bigot.
They won’t say it out loud…even though it’s a massive part of it. The youth are staring at a shit load of immigrants from hard right religious countries yelling at how they want to turn their country into a Shira law shit hole…but no it’s the social media…
From an outsider perspective, it looks like you told him to “go respond to this guy instead”, but linked the same comment that it was already responding to. It was confusing and made you look like the asshole in the situation, which I’m trying to help prevent in the future.
If memory serves, the Obama administration (the one far right was screaming for 8 years was going to take away all the guns) specifically looked at bump stocks and said they were legal.
Trump freaked out at the Las Vegas shooting and pushed the ban ASAP.
"Take away their guns and worry about the due process later”
Quoting that anti-constitution anti-gun president got me banned from a libertarian subreddit back in the day. I made it very clear I was against his position on blatantly violating the Fourth Amendment. I guess they were just extremely triggered by the quote?
news
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.